gaaboard.com

GAA Discussion => GAA Discussion => Topic started by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 09:35:03 AM

Title: Tom Humphries
Post by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 09:35:03 AM
Humphries used to be a good sports journalist. I actually used to think there none better, with the exception, maybe, of Enda McEvoy. Of late though hes turned into a hypocrite who whinges too much and  thinks hes funny, when hes clearly not.

Apologies Tom, I expressed an opinion just there. Shame on me.

PS> You and your ilk won the Rule 42 vote, so how about we drop it?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on January 29, 2007, 11:03:37 AM
Just read what you were on about there BT. As one who generally admires Humphries I must say that some of that article was really poor and uncalled for.

Whoops, there's me offering an opinion as well. Line me up against the wall with BT so.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: IolarCoisCuain on January 29, 2007, 11:04:43 AM
The article in question:



Only churls churlish over Croker lights

Tom Humphries

Mon, Jan 29, 2007

Locker Room:In the murky alcoves and quiet corners of the chat rooms there are still some contributors bellyaching and muttering darkly about next Saturday's floodlit extravaganza in Croke Park.

A friend used to describe the Livelineprogramme on RTÉ Radio 1 as a civic forum for cranks, and happily the internet and its humming chat rooms have extended the possibilities for that benighted portion of the population who are never happy unless they are grumbling.

To sneak around the chat rooms eavesdropping one would suspect the Dublin-versus-Tyrone shindig was like the Vietnam draft, a compulsory exercise and one likely to lead to death or maiming.

Legislation for the draft has apparently been drawn up by a cabal of media types with nothing better to do. Finally, it is clear the game will do nothing but harm, the least of its unforeseen consequences being media interest, which as we all know, hits a team like the MRSA superbug hits a hospital.

For the rest of us it's a nice little celebration. If you were dragged up a certain way the new year starts in earnest only when the serious GAA action begins again. That period of the year between the end of the provincial club championships to, well, next weekend is spent in a period of suspended animation, marked (well, more so than usual) by feelings of ennui, lethargy and slight depression.

Sure, there is the diet of soccer, the Premiership, The Roy and Niall Show, and the ever-entertaining soap opera of the domestic league, which even in its downtime lurches from crisis to crisis like a drunk walking against the traffic.

For a bewildering number of people on this island there is the Heino as well, an event we take more seriously than the rest of the world put together, and well, why not? If it mixes sport with a suggestion that somebody drinks this beer instead of that beer we're all for it so long as it ain't the GAA that's at it.

All those distractions are fine but they are somewhat remote. The country isn't in full gear till the GAA is up and running and speculative conversation abut the summer is coursing through the veins of the nation.

Next Saturday night is a celebration not just of the end of the winter doldrums but of the end of one period in the GAA's history and the start of another.

The first floodlit game to be played in Croker comes, as we'll tire of hearing over the next few months, before the gates are thrown open and the new tenants are let in.

There are a small minority of diehards, begrudgers and whingers who, like the poor, shall always be with us, and they aren't happy. These people attract cameras and microphones like starlets having wardrobe malfunctions on their nights out. A disproportionate amount of attention is given to things they would be better off keeping private.

These are people from within the GAA who believe that when they cut themselves shaving they seep green, green blood. They are the people from outside the GAA who actually enjoyed the GAA's discomfort over Rule 42. Cold-war types who still live it.

For both sides, Michael Greenan, of the Ulster Council, is an icon and his threat to run for the presidency of the GAA is a promise to bring both sides to business as it was practised, say, in 1959.

The rest of us (barring the iconic Michael Greenan) are just happy to see the back of that dark period of time and to be on the cusp of an era where the GAA's achievement at Croke Park is highlighted and talked about and welcomed and respected.

For the next few months we might still be backward-looking, swamp-dwelling stickballing Neanderthals but we are the ones opening up the grand house and taking the rent from our professional friends. Only a churl would be, well, churlish about it.

Dublin and Tyrone are a perfect way to start things off in the post-churl era.

Mention of those teams and Michael Greenan actually reminds us of that splendid piece of YouTube footage which showcases about five minutes of highlights, head-butts, high tackles and carnage from the Dublin v Tyrone game in the Skydome in Toronto back in 1990. Peter Canavan was 18 and looked like Rick Astley.

The so-called Battle of Omagh was sissy stuff by comparison, but there, scampering around happily in his referee's outfit on the artificial sward used for those foreign abominations of baseball and gridiron was our Michael Greenan.

There's a sense about this season that there is an All-Ireland out there for the taking. Missing a couple of stars, settling a few others and just getting his feet under the table is likely to hinder Pat O'Shea. Armagh are in a curious spot, too old in parts, too young in others. Mayo have John O'Mahony but have they the mental strength? Cork seem a little bit off, especially in the forwards.

That leaves Dublin and Tyrone. The Ulster champions have the best footballers and maybe the shrewdest manager but they've been rolling on for some time now and it will be interesting come summer to see if they have the intensity in their gut to play their high-pressure game. And Rick Astley is gone, taking with him that raw edge which made him so infuriating for opposition fans to watch.

And the Dubs? There's a point to prove after last August and it will take a few new faces to prove it. For a long time the rap on the Dubs has been that they take athletes and try to turn them into footballers (they actually take hurlers and turn them into footballers but let's not go there now), but with Diarmuid Connolly, Bernard Brogan and Dotsie O'Callaghan all bubbling up nicely there's a lot of class to choose from in their forwards.

Midfield is a slight worry in that Ciarán Whelan, patchy though his excellence is, can't go on forever, but the evidence in Tullamore yesterday is Darren Magee is coming back to the level where he is a serious option.

The defence is a greater worry. There's lots of talk about putting the Sigerson-winning midfielder Ross McConnell in the number three jersey for a while and, looking at the back lines, one wonders sometimes where the necessary toughness is going to come from. Where is the Gay O'Driscoll, the Pat O'Neill, the Paddy Moran, or Keith Barr or Eamonn Heery? Ger Brennan brings a little of that and there's a quiet constituency that likes the outside chances of Paul Brogan of Plunketts as well.

That's what makes next Saturday such an opportunity on every level. It's an occasion . The GAA celebrating itself a little while it stands on the threshold of history. And it's a game. Tyrone, who have been experimenting madly in the McKenna Cup, against Dublin, who have been a little more cautious but need three or four new faces to shake things up.

What could be better than throwing a few players into the mix in front of 82,000 people while playing opposition that wants to put down a serious marker? Both benches get a rare chance to see what their tyros might be like under pressure at the height of summer.

We all step out into the light on Saturday and two sides who fancy themselves for the long haul to next September get to have their credentials examined against that light. It will be magical and it will be interesting too. And it's only February.

Relax in the chat rooms, lads. Enjoy the show.
© 2007 The Irish Times
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on January 29, 2007, 11:16:34 AM
I'm with Tom.  I suppose it's going to progress like all other similar topics on the issue, which basically is change.  The most offensive thing he's written is saying that Tyrone are Ulster Champions!
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Hound on January 29, 2007, 11:25:36 AM
There'll never be a "post-churl era"
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 11:28:02 AM
wrong bennydorano, its not about change, its about your opinion not being worth a damn if it doesn't tally with big Tom's. This isn't the first article of this nature and no doubt won't be the last.

One would think that Tom is the died-in-the-wool ground-roots GAA man that we should all aspire to be. Other than going to watch a few under-14 camogie matches and regularly being in attendance at club and county games that he probably gets in free for, I'd like to know what makes him so special that he feels he has the right to diss me and tell me to keep my opinions to myself. Is he in the fields on a saturday morning with a gaggle of kids setting up drills, carrying water, offerring pearls of wisdom from his vast exposure to our games over the years? Is he putting up nets, putting down flags, ringing players, ringing the opposition to arrange games, organising lifts, washing jerseys?

I do all those things Tom. Yet my opinion doesn't deserve to be heard?

And what? I should be glad of the likes of you in my organisation?

I think not.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Over the Bar on January 29, 2007, 11:34:28 AM
Rick Astley?? wtf?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on January 29, 2007, 11:40:31 AM
In fairness, Canavan's hair did look like Rick Astley back then :D

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: GalwayBayBoy on January 29, 2007, 11:51:58 AM
A fairly tame article to be getting worked up about I would have thought.

I suggest though that it would be better contacting Tom himself about it rather than coming on here whinging about it.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: IolarCoisCuain on January 29, 2007, 12:06:09 PM
A fairly tame article to be getting worked up about I would have thought.

I suggest though that it would be better contacting Tom himself about it rather than coming on here whinging about it.

Ara come off it a Bhuachaill Cuain na Gaillimhe, we're only doing the Fat Man a favour by talking about it here. He'll be able to squeeze another thousand words out of this for next week and then take the weekend off, able to eat sausages 'til he bursts on Saturday in Croker.  ;D
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: The Bottom Brick on January 29, 2007, 12:26:12 PM
Humphries gave his opinion and belittled the opposing viewpoint in oing so -I don't see what's wrong with that.

By the way, the man is still the best sportswriter in Ireland by a country mile.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Rufus T Firefly on January 29, 2007, 12:36:25 PM
Humphries gave his opinion and belittled the opposing viewpoint in oing so -I don't see what's wrong with that.

By the way, the man is still the best sportswriter in Ireland by a country mile.

Agree with that!

He has commented on the views of the 'no camp'. At no point has he said they are not entitled to hold that viewpoint or indeed to express it!

But then, that doesn't suit the MOPEry (thanks OWC  ;D) of the 'no camp' here!   

Good man Tom!  ;)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 12:49:27 PM
Quote
There are a small minority of diehards, begrudgers and whingers who, like the poor, shall always be with us, and they aren't happy. These people attract cameras and microphones like starlets having wardrobe malfunctions on their nights out. A disproportionate amount of attention is given to things they would be better off keeping private.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on January 29, 2007, 12:53:50 PM
Quote
they would better off keeping private

I read that as in , 'in my opinion their objections are not valid, and they'd be better off not airing them for their own sakes'.

I don't think he meant you aren't entitled to have those opinions.

If I said that I think Leprechauns exist, I'd be entitled to hold that viewpoint, but I'd be better off keeping it to myself :D
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 01:01:43 PM
its not how I read it and I'd be sure enough thats not how it was meant (in the context of the rest of the article...'bellyaching'.....and other lazy, poor articles hes written on the topic).

And yes, I found it very offensive. Why even have a vote if one of the 2  options is 'not valid' (your words AZOffaly), or is one that me and my ilk should keep to ourselves?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Hound on January 29, 2007, 01:03:26 PM
Nope, "keeping private" in this context does not mean keeping quiet, it means keeping it within GAA circles, i.e. if you have a complaint to make about proper procedure, then use the proper procedure yourself to air those grievances, rather than giving press conferences about it in Dubai - the primary purpose of which was clearly self promotion.  
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on January 29, 2007, 01:07:48 PM
My word as in that's how I read his sentence.

That is not my opinion, rather my reading of his.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: J70 on January 29, 2007, 01:13:30 PM
Some of you are very easily offended.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 01:15:42 PM
Nope, "keeping private" in this context does not mean keeping quiet, it means keeping it within GAA circles, i.e. if you have a complaint to make about proper procedure, then use the proper procedure yourself to air those grievances, rather than giving press conferences about it in Dubai - the primary purpose of which was clearly self promotion. 

well no, it couldn't mean that given that he says that some of these people are not within the GAA.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 01:17:09 PM
My word as in that's how I read his sentence.

That is not my opinion, rather my reading of his.

fair enough, but that doesn't improve things any. In fact it worsens them.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: highorlow on January 29, 2007, 01:30:24 PM
http://spailpin.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: INDIANA on January 29, 2007, 01:31:33 PM
just on  a point of reference
"One would think that Tom is the died-in-the-wool ground-roots GAA man that we should all aspire to be. Other than going to watch a few under-14 camogie matches and regularly being in attendance at club and county games that he probably gets in free for, I'd like to know what makes him so special that he feels he has the right to diss me and tell me to keep my opinions to myself. Is he in the fields on a saturday morning with a gaggle of kids setting up drills, carrying water, offerring pearls of wisdom from his vast exposure to our games over the years? Is he putting up nets, putting down flags, ringing players, ringing the opposition to arrange games, organising lifts, washing jerseys?"

tom did that with the camogie team he trained not that in my view it's relevent to the argument because i don't think it is. tom writes his own column and to be fair he's entitledto his views - and i'm not saying everyone has to agree with them.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bottlethrower7 on January 29, 2007, 01:37:38 PM
tom writes his own column and to be fair he's entitledto his views - and i'm not saying everyone has to agree with them.

agreed, but you think he'd afford others that courtesy too.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Hound on January 29, 2007, 02:15:04 PM
Nope, "keeping private" in this context does not mean keeping quiet, it means keeping it within GAA circles, i.e. if you have a complaint to make about proper procedure, then use the proper procedure yourself to air those grievances, rather than giving press conferences about it in Dubai - the primary purpose of which was clearly self promotion. 

well no, it couldn't mean that given that he says that some of these people are not within the GAA.
One of us is getting mixed up. He mentioned in passing the people outside the GAA who love to see us arguing with each other. He didnt mention anything about them keeping quiet. It was the GAA people he said should keep things within the private world of the GAA rather than hold press conferences.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: The Bottom Brick on January 29, 2007, 02:23:06 PM
Quote
I am amazed he has held down a writing job so long. My opinion.

You're an idiot. My opinion.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: guy crouchback on January 29, 2007, 02:39:48 PM
Quote
ust on  a point of reference
"One would think that Tom is the died-in-the-wool ground-roots GAA man that we should all aspire to be. Other than going to watch a few under-14 camogie matches and regularly being in attendance at club and county games that he probably gets in free for, I'd like to know what makes him so special that he feels he has the right to diss me and tell me to keep my opinions to myself. Is he in the fields on a saturday morning with a gaggle of kids setting up drills, carrying water, offerring pearls of wisdom from his vast exposure to our games over the years? Is he putting up nets, putting down flags, ringing players, ringing the opposition to arrange games, organising lifts, washing jerseys?"

tom did that with the camogie team he trained not that in my view it's relevent to the argument because i don't think it is. tom writes his own column and to be fair he's entitledto his views - and i'm not saying everyone has to agree with them.

Tom?

on a relataed issue did anyone hear Ray Silke on the last word on friday evening. it seems he was at a wedding on friday and i got the distinct impression he had a few on him during the interview.
now while Ray talk pure drival at the best of times on friday he was just rambling on with utter horse shit.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: thewobbler on January 29, 2007, 02:43:43 PM
Was thinking the same Guy Crouchbank. He rolled more than a few words together and seemed to be sort of itching for pub-style row about nothing.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AbbeySider on January 29, 2007, 02:55:45 PM
Was thinking the same Guy Crouchbank. He rolled more than a few words together and seemed to be sort of itching for pub-style row about nothing.

He did sound rantish. He went on a major rant when Matt Cooper said that the GAA was in a healthy state if it can fill Croke Park in early February.

Silke seemed to flip and made the point that tickets were very cheap (Matt and Carney said they were not that cheap etc) Then he said that they were very cheap compared to how much the IRFU are charging.  And that it is no reflection on the state of the GAA just because people are playing 15 euro for tickets and filling Croker in February.... kinda funny listening to him  ;D
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Mayo4Sam on January 29, 2007, 04:02:07 PM
An excellent retort from an spailin fanach

Take That, Backwoodsman!
 
An Spailpín’s little head is ringing this morning. The Backwoodsmen of the GAA, those people that are deeply unhappy to see Croke Park turned over to competing codes, got a very severe lash of Tom Humphries’ crozier in the Irish Times this morning and, as your faithful correspondent is a card-carrying member of that strange church, he too is withered under the blow.

Big Tom sums up his argument in two paragraphs in about the middle of this morning’s Locker-Room column. (The rest of the column is shadow-boxing and pontificating about Dublin’s chances of winning the All-Ireland, which makes An Spailpín less guilty about blathering on about Mayo all the time in this forum – after all, An Spailpín Fánach is only a weblog, whereas The Irish Times is, famously, the Paper of Record). Anyway, Tom sums up the pro-opening argument:

The rest of us (barring the iconic Michael Greenan) are just happy to see the back of that dark period of time and to be on the cusp of an era where the GAA's achievement at Croke Park is highlighted and talked about and welcomed and respected.

For the next few months we might still be backward-looking, swamp-dwelling stickballing Neanderthals but we are the ones opening up the grand house and taking the rent from our professional friends. Only a churl would be, well, churlish about it.


Now your diligent quillsman does not number “psychologist” under his many titles and banners of honour, but even to an amateur opinion do those pars suggest to you that someone may be nursing an inferiority complex?

“We might still be backward-looking, swamp-dwelling stickballing Neanderthals.”

As well as not being a psychologist, your constant chronicler does not consider himself a Neanderthal either, neither the swamp-dwelling nor backward-looking variety. And even if things were so low that he did, it’d take more than a pat on the head from Nige and Darren, over in Dublin to support the English rugger XV, to change my status. An Spailpín Fánach is an Irishman. You can take him or leave him, but you' won't change him. It's up to you how you deal with that.

This notion about Croke Park being “highlighted and talked about and welcomed and respected” – what’s going on there, exactly? Does anybody really think that Pierre or Freddie give a rooty-toot-toot about any of the stadia in which games are played? How many people came back from the World Cup talking about the stadia? Let’s play a little game – which stadium was considered so gosh-darned wonderful in the last World Cup that FIFA would have given it six stars, rather than the regular five, if only they could?

Exactly. The answer is at the bottom, as your steadfast scrivener hates leaving people guessing. But anyone that thinks anybody is coming for those two rugby games to hear about Michaels Hogan or Cusack would want to think again. If Big Tom and his ilk are looking for some sort of legitimacy from the visitors they’ll be waiting. Maybe the soccer boys will be more grateful. Let’s hope so.

Finally, unpleasant as it is, An Spailpín can’t help but worry about what may be another Freudian slip – what rich pickings those two paragraphs are! The phrase that concerns is “we are the ones opening up the grand house and taking the rent from our professional friends.”

If you make one substitution in that sentence you will realise instantly why we benighted backwoodsmen, we knuckle-dragging, shirt-under-geansaí wearing, Smithwick-drinking, country-loving hicks, are so desperately concerned about competing codes in Croke Park. Read “we are the ones opening up the grand house and taking the rent from our professional friends” again, this time substituting the word “wife” for “house,” and you’ll see in all its sordid glory just what Seán Kelly and the other appeasers, from the innocent to the ignorant to the downright cynical, have wrought.

The German stadium? Gelsenkirchen, of course. Where else?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: GalwayBayBoy on January 29, 2007, 04:22:56 PM
An excellent retort from an spailin fanach

Take That, Backwoodsman!
 
An Spailpín’s little head is ringing this morning. The Backwoodsmen of the GAA, those people that are deeply unhappy to see Croke Park turned over to competing codes, got a very severe lash of Tom Humphries’ crozier in the Irish Times this morning and, as your faithful correspondent is a card-carrying member of that strange church, he too is withered under the blow.

Big Tom sums up his argument in two paragraphs in about the middle of this morning’s Locker-Room column. (The rest of the column is shadow-boxing and pontificating about Dublin’s chances of winning the All-Ireland, which makes An Spailpín less guilty about blathering on about Mayo all the time in this forum – after all, An Spailpín Fánach is only a weblog, whereas The Irish Times is, famously, the Paper of Record). Anyway, Tom sums up the pro-opening argument:

The rest of us (barring the iconic Michael Greenan) are just happy to see the back of that dark period of time and to be on the cusp of an era where the GAA's achievement at Croke Park is highlighted and talked about and welcomed and respected.

For the next few months we might still be backward-looking, swamp-dwelling stickballing Neanderthals but we are the ones opening up the grand house and taking the rent from our professional friends. Only a churl would be, well, churlish about it.


Now your diligent quillsman does not number “psychologist” under his many titles and banners of honour, but even to an amateur opinion do those pars suggest to you that someone may be nursing an inferiority complex?

“We might still be backward-looking, swamp-dwelling stickballing Neanderthals.”

As well as not being a psychologist, your constant chronicler does not consider himself a Neanderthal either, neither the swamp-dwelling nor backward-looking variety. And even if things were so low that he did, it’d take more than a pat on the head from Nige and Darren, over in Dublin to support the English rugger XV, to change my status. An Spailpín Fánach is an Irishman. You can take him or leave him, but you' won't change him. It's up to you how you deal with that.

This notion about Croke Park being “highlighted and talked about and welcomed and respected” – what’s going on there, exactly? Does anybody really think that Pierre or Freddie give a rooty-toot-toot about any of the stadia in which games are played? How many people came back from the World Cup talking about the stadia? Let’s play a little game – which stadium was considered so gosh-darned wonderful in the last World Cup that FIFA would have given it six stars, rather than the regular five, if only they could?

Exactly. The answer is at the bottom, as your steadfast scrivener hates leaving people guessing. But anyone that thinks anybody is coming for those two rugby games to hear about Michaels Hogan or Cusack would want to think again. If Big Tom and his ilk are looking for some sort of legitimacy from the visitors they’ll be waiting. Maybe the soccer boys will be more grateful. Let’s hope so.

Finally, unpleasant as it is, An Spailpín can’t help but worry about what may be another Freudian slip – what rich pickings those two paragraphs are! The phrase that concerns is “we are the ones opening up the grand house and taking the rent from our professional friends.”

If you make one substitution in that sentence you will realise instantly why we benighted backwoodsmen, we knuckle-dragging, shirt-under-geansaí wearing, Smithwick-drinking, country-loving hicks, are so desperately concerned about competing codes in Croke Park. Read “we are the ones opening up the grand house and taking the rent from our professional friends” again, this time substituting the word “wife” for “house,” and you’ll see in all its sordid glory just what Seán Kelly and the other appeasers, from the innocent to the ignorant to the downright cynical, have wrought.

The German stadium? Gelsenkirchen, of course. Where else?


Hard to take anything seriously from anyone who refers to themself in the third person. ;D
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: tayto on January 29, 2007, 04:24:24 PM
Quote
I am amazed he has held down a writing job so long. My opinion.

You're an idiot. My opinion.

ha ha ha
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on January 29, 2007, 04:32:18 PM
i agree with the spailpin the greatest heresy of the article is to start the hype yet again on dublins championship campaign on the basis of what?
nobody else being any good !.
 they way he writes off Kerry beggars belief. apart from winning the allireland in their last serious game what exactly have they done wrong?  did the gooch play that badly in the club quater finals or is there something hes not telling us .
 even shoody nurotic old mayo were able to take dublin out despite only paying for about a half an our of the game,
. nope Its just all hype and bull to sell papers in the Capital.
 and as for greenan hes a man who has totally devoted his life to the GAA and though you may not agree with him I think 40 years dedication devseves at least an ear if only for the fact that the good people of ulster have appointed him as their GAA leader
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: INDIANA on January 29, 2007, 04:36:05 PM
i disagree about grennan i think his views actually don't make any sense and harp back to a bygone era that by and large we have left behind us.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Kerry Mike on January 29, 2007, 04:51:17 PM
Never liked Tom H since he named his book Dublin V Kerry.

Yerra twas a great read but the title would lead the neutral alien, who had just snagged his spaceship off the tip of the spire and landed in Kerrymans Street (O'Connell Street to all Jackeens) and bought a copy of Tomasin's bookeen to believe, twas the Jackeens and not the Kingdom that were somehow the better of the two counties

However wins for Kerry in 1975,1978,1979,1984 & 1985 against wins in 1976 & 1977 between the two tells its own tale. We won't even go there about 2001 and 2004.

Its a small thing that makes me happy in my little backwoods but its always Kerry v Dublin for me.

So there Tom, by the way any chance of an auld ticket for one of the rugby games?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: INDIANA on January 29, 2007, 05:00:31 PM
i think you'll find if look at the background to the story properly you'd understand it better like:

a- dublin weren't as talented as kerry they were coming from nowhere - it took a special man like heffernan to put them together. that was a story in itself Could O Dwyer have done the same- no.

b-the kerry team is characterised by bitching and in-fighting and the fact most of them hate the sight of each other made it difficult to get them to open up. the dublin team have remained good friends and quite frankly are far more interesting characters in terms of writing about- nobody suggested dublin were a better team.

c the reality is anyone could have trianed that kerry team- very few (if any)could have done what heffo did broke down the barriers of tradition and gave dublin back theirs- kerry would always have been good - in dublin the gaa was on its knees. again nobody suggested dublin were ever the better team.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Mayo4Sam on January 29, 2007, 05:09:24 PM

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on January 29, 2007, 05:09:57 PM
Indiana, some bold points there, but I'll let Kerry Mike retaliate himself. However .....

Quote
b-the kerry team is characterised by bitching and in-fighting and the fact most of them hate the sight of each other made it difficult to get them to open up. the dublin team have remained good friends and quite frankly are far more interesting characters in terms of writing aboutnobody suggested dublin were a better team.

Whatever about the Kerry team 'hating the sight of each other', which I think is highly debatable, your point that the Dublin team are far more interesting characters is very subjective. Maybe to a Dub, Heffo's Army are very interesting, but to me they are just another successful team from a bygone era.

I think legends like Spillane, O'Shea, O'Sé, Sheehy, Liston, Kennelly, Power, Egan, Nelligan et al are a much more interesting team, full of characters and driven men.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: saffron sam2 on January 30, 2007, 08:25:45 AM
Unfortunately, whilst Humphries is without doubt a talented and entertaining writer his stock has gone somewhat in my opinion for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, his book "Laptop Dancing and the Nanny Goat Mambo" was so strewn with basic factual errors that the amount of research done must be questioned.  Secondly, on the eve of the 2003 All-Ireland final he did a disgracefully sanitised full page article the history of the Ballygawley / Glencull split.  The article suggesting that the disagreement was a mere misunderstanding and that resolving the split was the easiet thing ever.  A good journalist would have the balls to write honestly about the story, not to appease the big names being written about.

Howeevr, he is spot on iwth Micheal Grennan.
Title: Ballygawley / Glencull
Post by: rosnarun on January 30, 2007, 11:22:29 AM
come on you cant leave it there . i remember the article. thought it was good at the time but now i've only got half the fact . i was particularly interested as our club was involved in a similar stiry at the time and some of the glencul folks cam down to mayo to talk to us at the time as mick loftus was gaa president at the time as well as the leading light in the club we were spillting from.
so come on spill the real story
Title: Re: Ballygawley / Glencull
Post by: saffron sam2 on January 30, 2007, 12:17:03 PM
come on you cant leave it there . i remember the article. thought it was good at the time but now i've only got half the fact . i was particularly interested as our club was involved in a similar stiry at the time and some of the glencul folks cam down to mayo to talk to us at the time as mick loftus was gaa president at the time as well as the leading light in the club we were spillting from.
so come on spill the real story
You are reading too much into my post.  What I meant that such a split would obviously be very acrimonious. As such Humphries doesn't get to the real depth of the bad feeling - why for example an Errigal Ciaran team (made up exclusively of Glencull players played in Division 3 for a year or why it took the appointment of Fr Hegarty (a fortunate coincidence) to get things moving or did the Glencull boys really support Ballygawley in their Championship matches or why the real momentum only took place after Peter Canavan left the minor ranks and the Tyrone county board could no longer use the Killyclogher loophole.  I will post the article to allow other posters to make up their own minds about the whole episode and the article.
Title: Article In Question
Post by: saffron sam2 on January 30, 2007, 12:18:05 PM
It's not the prettiest place even when late summer's red sun is sinking beneath the furthest pines and the hum of the day's traffic is waning slowly. It's northern raw and hauntingly dark and the population sprawls like any rural community outgrowing itself. Here, memories of the bad times slash like a razor. In these weeks of happy anticipation even mere conversation can open old wounds.

The big roads of the "wee six" are laid like black ribbons all round and for most of us daytrippers and rubber-necks, Ballygawley is nothing but the name on a large roundabout. Half the directions you've ever received to places north of the border involve a pivotal moment when you take the nth turn off the Ballygawley roundabout. And keep going.

Yet tomorrow is their day. More than it is anybody else's day it is Ballygawley's. For Tyrone, Ballygawley is the pivot. Ballygawley is the source. Football Central.

Ballygawley begat Errigal Ciarán and Errigal Ciarán begat Peter Canavan. Enough for you? Or perhaps Peter Canavan begat Errigal Ciarán. The story of the club is a story of the spirit and the hunger and the passion which has defined Tyrone football for the past few decades as the county has closed in on an All-Ireland. Canavan is at the heart of the creation story.

Press rewind. Hold your finger down for a while . . .

Barry Canavan, the big brother (one of) was in New York. Enjoying life. It was 1982. Hair was bigger. Mankind had yet to discover email. The letters kept arriving from home.

A few years previously Barry and a couple of friends had thought up a way of keeping the parish of Ballygawley entertained during that time of the year when sensible folk stopped playing Gaelic football. The parish of Ballygawley was naturally divided into four segments. The Canavans for instance lived out in Glencull, a large tribe bristling with football promise. Glencull would play the other three areas of the parish in a four way league.

For a little while it was fine and it was fun. Then Barry went to New York and by the time the letters started arriving things had gone awry. Glencull's Mickey Harte had been sent-off one evening in a match against Ballygawley. Fine, but when it came to disciplining Mickey Harte there was no tendency to dispense a quiet slap on the wrist and get on with things.

There were stern elements in the club who were no fans of Mickey. It was proposed that he be given a suspension which would begin at the start of the following football year.

"There were a couple of other things as well," remembers Canavan now. "They ran down Stephen, my brother, and a couple of other players saying they never played as hard for Ballygalwey as for Glencull in this parish league. It was very upsetting for people and Glencull just said no, they weren't going along with it. Cathal (McAnerley) was the chairman at the time. He's from Glencull. They asked him to leave the meeting while they discussed the matter. He said if he left he wouldn't be back. They said 'well we'll see how we go on without you'."

They got on for nine long years without each other. Glencull went their own way. Ballygawley played on without them. Nose separated from face while face pretended not to notice.

"Looking back it's totally ridiculous," says Paudge Quinn, who scored that goal against Kerry in the 1986 All-Ireland final and who grew up on the Ballygawley side of the parish. "People were married through each side, there was cousins involved, families. People avoided each other, didn't talk. I never heard of very unpleasant circumstances but it was just sad. More sad than bitter, if you know the way."

More sad than bitter. Glencull had a field to their name. They played nine-a-side tournaments in the field and lived for nine years on a diet of challenges and tournaments. For nine years Glencull tried to affiliate independently to the GAA and for nine years they failed.

Careers were ruined. Stephen Canavan was a county minor a couple of years before the split. For many in Glencull the All-Ireland final of 1986 was the lowest point of the wilderness years. They knew Stephen Canavan should have been playing, would have been playing. They knew the difference he would have made. Instead Paudge Quinn from Ballygawley scored a goal. Tyrone looked like winning it. They lost it. How twisted were the emotions in Glencull that night.

"It was hard on lots of us," says Barry Canavan, "I didn't lose an intercounty career but I watched Stephen lose his. I was one of the older members. I had a lot of a lot of friends, guys like Paudge Quinn and co who I'd played with in Ballygawley for years. I missed them.

"Peter (Canavan) had no connections with Ballygawley. I had a lot. I'd to go occasionally and watch them play, missing out on championships. We'd have gone to their championship games."

There were strong friendships beforehand and in most cases they survived. Glencull men and Ballygawley men would go out and do the hardest thing. Abstain. They wouldn't talk about football all night. That virtuous abstinence was its own punishment.

Barry Canavan sometimes broke ranks and strolled into Christopher Quinn's pub in town. Crossing the threshold was breaking an unwritten law in Glencull but his old Ballygawley friends and team-mates were in there. He missed them.

"People stuck to their paths. There were fellas who you knew it would be trouble to bump into. You avoided each other."

Nine years. Glencull raised £30,000 in a draw when feelings were high and kept fundraising. They hit the roads. Every Sunday convoys of players headed away to play in games that meant more to them than anyone else.

Fifty or 60 people would come to the occasional meeting to discuss the ongoing campaign for Glencull to go out on their own.

Every year they believed their constituency of about 100 houses was about to become a fully-fledged club. Every year they were rebuffed. They kept on playing for the sheer love of it. Mickey Harte was their best player and their inspiration. They realised after a while that other clubs around Tyrone liked keeping Ballygawley in a weakened state and were most obliging with challenge games and tournament invitations.

What could they do? They played and played. They travelled to Armagh frequently. They reckon they played every single club in Fermanagh. Wherever there was a match they would go to.

Careers drifted past. Pascal Canavan never played under-16 or minor competitions. Peter Canavan missed the entire gamut of underage competitions. Eventually a Tyrone mentor persuaded him to join Killyclogher hurling club as a flag of convenience to get picked for the county minor side. Word of his wonder had spread far and wide by then.

Life in the parish settled back into its routine. Fr McPeake, the parish priest, was inscrutable in showing no interest or favouritism to either side. Occasionally he would make the odd diplomatic foray but at the first feel of resistance he would withdraw again.

In the late 80s several things came together though. Ballygawley Ciaráns reached a county final. They had been threatening to win a title for decades.

"Well, we got to the county final in 1989," says Séamus Horisk, a former chairman, "and it was a huge feat in the sense that - I shouldn't say this, I suppose - those of us at the Ballygawley end only had three quarters of the available squad. We were well beaten by Coalisland. We knew we were still there or thereabouts, though. Maybe it gave people the idea that if we were united . . . I know that on the day in 1989 they were supporting us in Glencull. It was still uncomfortable, there were still arguments and differences of opinion but football was getting people excited again."

Not long afterwards help came from the unlikeliest of sources. From Armagh. Fr Seán Hegarty, who had spent much of the 80s managing the Armagh county team, moved to Ballygawley as a curate.

He saw the lay of the land quickly and identified the most charismatic man on each side of the divide. Barney Horisk in Ballygawley. Seán Canavan, father of all the Canavans, in Glencull.

He chose well. Seán Canavan was a butcher, a part-time farmer and a football addict. His son Peter, the second youngest of 11 kids, was growing to greatness without a stage to express himself on. Barney Horisk was a self employed man running a car washing/valet service from his house on the edge of town on the road to Dungannon. Both were men around whom people gravitated for football conversation and opinion.

In Barney Horisk's house Mondays were for post-mortems, late in the week was for more idle speculation. Young players loved Barney, he would charm management on their behalf, explaining that a young fella needed a holiday and he'd be back for the second round, etc. And they listened to Barney because he might be taking down nets as it grew dark one night and putting out flags while it was still dewy the following morning.

Fr Hegarty worked his magic. In fact, it was easier than that. Everyone you speak to in Ballygawley or Glencull says the same thing.

"He lied to us all," laughs Cathal McAnerly, "but I suppose he has the connections to get himself forgiven." "He spun us all tales" says Paudge Quinn.

"Basically," says Barry Canavan, "he'd go to one end of the parish and announce at a meeting or in company that the fellas at the other end of the parish had had enough, that they were willing to sit down and talk. Then he'd go to the other end of the parish and say the same thing. Nobody was ready to talk really but he got everyone thinking about it."

"I remember," says McAnerly, "that he got us all together in his house and not too late in the evening he said he had an early start the next day and asked us to leave. He said to me afterwards he went upstairs and looked out the window and we were all standing on the road discussing what had gone on and he knew he had us. We were standing there talking together."

People in Glencull understood after 1989 that Ballygawley weren't that far away from a title. People in Ballygawley understood what was missing; The Messiah. He lived in Glencull. His name was Peter Canavan.

Barney Horisk stuck his neck out on the Ballygawley side. Made arguments that made sense. Seán Canavan did likewise on the Glencull side. Meeting followed meeting and in 1991 a new club was born. Errigal Ciarán take their name from the proper name of the parish.

The blue and white of the old club was augmented by a little gold from St Malachy's, as the Glencull end called itself.

The story was just beginning. So too was Peter Canavan's career.

They have five Tyrone championships now. A couple of Ulster titles. A national Féile title at under-14. More kids than they can handle. Three pitches, a stand, floodlights and the star on a county team which is on the cusp of an All-Ireland. They bristle with energy.

"The years of the split were as hard as any individual wanted to make them," says Paudge Quinn. "The fact that we came together showed there was a lot of common ground and respect amongst everybody. That would be the bedrock upon which the club was founded. It would mean an lot to Tyrone football too."

They nailed together an interim committee with four people from each side of the division, Barney Horisk being one of them. Fr Hegarty was the first chairman.

They lost a few pilgrims along the way. Barney Horisk had a very big say in how things went on the Ballygawley side and once he stuck his neck out with the Ballygawley people they followed.

Glencull was a little different, though. A small bit of bad blood lasted to the end. When Glencull had splintered off there were a lot of people who hadn't been strong GAA people who became filled with passion and announced themselves strong GAA people. They were Glencull through and through. GAA was secondary to their passion. They lost some of those folk at reconciliation time. Almost everyone else couldn't wait to play football.

They rebuilt their club wisely, the thought and love that went into its construction served as a warranty against malfunction.

"We took a decision early on that there would be a term of office of three years for any position in the club," says Cathal McAnerly, the current chairman. "That has meant that there is always new energy and new ideas coming through. We haven't gone stale yet."

For the first year they entered three teams into Tyrone competitions. Part of the package was that, for the first season, the Glencull team would be allowed play together in Division Three. They waltzed to the title and surprised themselves by losing in the championship.

The senior championship was something else. They played Dungannon in the first round and through the parish the sense of anticipation made sleep a fugitive.

"What a spirit," says Paudge Quinn "I'll never forget that night. Something totally new. We beat Dungannon 0-13 to 1-5. I've never played on a championship team with so little preparation. We just pulled together, though. Fr Hegarty won the game in the dressingroom that night. It was an unreal feeling, all these people together, so much talent there. It took him to articulate it."

That was the real start. Canavans back playing with Quinns. Memories flooding. When Mickey Harte and Paudge Quinn began playing they were always centre forward and full forward on the same team. Then somebody took nine years away.

Trillick beat them in the next round but that was the start of it though.

Their first county championship came in 1993. They beat Moortown in the final. Peter Canavan captained the club. The following year was sweeter perhaps. Canavan scored 3-27 through the championship. They beat Carrickmore in the final. Nothing better than beating Carrickmore. This time, this period of success and unity, it was better than anything that had gone before.

This is a northern story, however. Grief caught them eventually. Nowhere else is the real world so rudely intrusive. Every innocent thing carries the potential to break your heart and for Errigal Ciarán grief caught up them when they were least expecting it. It caught them on the day they won their first senior league title in 1996.

The circumstances were a little strange, for sure. Firstly, it was December 22nd. The league had mainly been played off early in the year but then due to Tyrone's prolonged involvement on the intercounty scene the competition was shelved and when the county board got around to looking at it again they decided to allow the top six teams to play off for the title.

Given that Carrickmore had been unbeaten all through they were a little sore about this. That the year should come down to a battle with Errigal Ciarán made Carrickmore less happy still.

"It was very late in the year," remembers Séamus Horisk, "and we were playing at a neutral venue, Fintona. We were winning and there was a row with a couple of minutes left. It was a sad day for everyone, including Carrickmore in that they lost a lot of credibility that day. They had a number of players suspended. We had one suspension."

"I was chairman of the club at the time and I watched the match with Barney, my cousin. As I was chairman and we were winning I got up near the end and left the stand and headed towards the pitch for the presentation. Then the row started, a vicious free-for-all."

In fact the game had degenerated into a series of running brawls. Referee Michael Hughes had already sent-off two players from either side when the play resumed late on. Errigal were three points in front and about to take the league title. Then chaos exploded.

"In the middle of it all I saw a commotion on the far stand," says Séamus Horisk. "Somebody came for me. Barney had died during the row. An aneurysm. It has to be said, he was going to take it anyway. It was going to come sooner or later. It wasn't the result of the row. No blame on anyone in the row but it was a sad, sad scene for all involved.

"I could see his son Paul, who had been playing for us, scaling the wires. People all around Barney. It was a black day on all fronts. The row in which a couple of our lads were injured and losing Barney, who would be buried on Christmas Eve, leaving behind a young family."

"Barney Horisk's passing was a huge blow," says Paudge Quinn "You know the sort of club man he was: 'whatever has to be done I'll do it'. That was his view. He'd stand and do umpire one night, take out a reserve team the next day. He lives on through Paul, though. Paul is on the county panel this weekend. A really good footballer who goes on ahead and does his own thing, the right thing."

"It happened on the Sunday before Christmas," says Cathal McAnerly. "It was just devastating for people. His passing left a huge whole in the club."

And this year, just before the Ulster final, another pillar vanished. Seán Canavan. Two great oaks who had bent towards one another suddenly vanished from the local landscape.

"To lose Daddy just before the Ulster final was a bad blow," says Barry Canavan. "He'd been in great form. He was looking forward to this roll that Tyrone are now on. He loved it and he was the top critic as well for the team. More effin' and blinding you have not heard. It was another hard loss for the club to take."

"Those things, those losses, all we've been through," says Cathal McAnerly, "they make us what we are as a club. We've had hard times. Together we've come through them."

They roll on. Every setback and every success making them stronger. They know the purity of that which they love. They know its importance.

"A lot of what we have comes from the leadership of Peter Canavan," says Paudge Quinn. "Club is first. Peter's talent leaves him ahead of everyone. And Pascal there as a leader too. Club. Club. Club. It's always first for them."

A picture comes to mind. A picture drawn from another unhappy day in Errigal Ciarán history but a moment so illustrative of the club and of Canavan that it is worth taking down anyway.

It was the night in 1998 when Peter Canavan's jaw got broken, the night of a challenge match between Errigal Ciarán and Dungannon Clarkes at O'Neill Park in Dungannon. A Tuesday night challenge in early summer with the elements and the mood all wrong.

We needn't lengthen the preamble with excessive detail. The game was ugly. One outbreak of violence ended up with Peter Canavan's jaw being broken in three places.

The game was abandoned. In the shower-room afterwards Dungannon player Barry Gormley suffered an assault and was knocked unconscious. He was lying on the floor, naked, with a broken jaw when other parties arrived on the scene.

Here accounts converge. There was a stand off of naked men. The Dungannon contingent were furious, baying for retribution. Yards away in a circle around Peter Canavan were the entire Errigal Ciarán team. Shoulder to shoulder, ready to go to the end.

"I suppose," says Barry Canavan, "everyone knows that Peter would do anything for anyone in the club. Some clubs have that special thing."

Onwards and upwards. Barney Horisk and Seán Canavan passed away. Fr Hegarty, having come from Armagh, moved on to Carrickmore, from where dispatches say his health hasn't been good.

There are a new generation of Canavans coming through. Barry and Stephen have contributed sons to the under-14 and -16 teams. Pascal has three girls, though, and the club is dabbling in women's football just in case genius lurks among them.

The future dazzles them as they gaze at it from the high ground. Club. Club. Club. They say. First. First. First. The words of Peter.




© The Irish Times 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: J70 on January 30, 2007, 01:14:05 PM
The nine year split was over a parish league sending off? :o

Or is that where Humphries skims over the details?

Losing their GAA-mad father so close to finally winning the All Ireland must have been very hard for the Canavans.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: muppet on January 30, 2007, 02:04:55 PM
 SS firstly I know nothing of the real story and  seeondly am a fan of Humphries but that doesn't mean I always agree with him.

 That article reads very well and I wouldn't get the impression that the problem was easily solved reading it. More that the main players would rather have a nervous joke about the whole thing and be happy to move on. That story probably needs a thesis to cover all the angles while Humphries was given maybe 1,500 words.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 07, 2017, 01:00:14 PM
http://www.thejournal.ie/journalist-pleads-guilty-sexual-offences-3274752-Mar2017/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/journalist-pleads-guilty-sexual-offences-3274752-Mar2017/)

I wonder....
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on March 07, 2017, 01:08:12 PM
2005

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/belief-and-zeal-are-their-drugs-of-choice-1.460954?mode=amp

LockerRoom: People keep calling me up and asking me what I think of Michelle Smith de Bruin's showing in the recent Marian Finucane Show poll to find the woman, who in the opinion of many of the MF Show Listenership, is the Greatest Irish Woman Living or Dead, Clean or Unclean.  On the one hand, I am perfectly indifferent. Certainly Michelle (and Erik) have done much to promote cheating (aren't those matching his 'n' hers bans so cute) and those within the cheat community must be extraordinarily proud of them both.  We can understand that, so if the listeners of the MF Show want to esteem and exalt a topline drug cheat above somebody like, well say, MF herself, who has made a huge contribution to Irish society, well than surely MF just deserves a better demographic.  On the other hand, I care deeply. I am outraged. I am frightened. Let me tell you about last weekend. It will explain all. I spent the weekend in Cork in the company of the Twenty-Four Greatest Living Irish Women, or the St Vincent's under-14 camogie team, as they are collectively known. We had the weekend of our lives. In fact, we had a holiday from life. If you've never been to an All-Ireland Féile competition you should cleanse your palate of the faintly sour whiskey taste of congealed Smith de Bruin and hightail it to Limerick next weekend to refresh yourself at the football Féile. Restore your faith in sport. The trip comes with guarantees and recommendations. As part of my indentured slavery I have been forced to work at World Cups and Olympics and heavyweight title fights and golf thingies and at all manner of sporting shindigs. I've never enjoyed anything remotely as much as I have enjoyed being immersed in a Féile. I never will.
Anyway you'll be wanting the lowdown. What happened. And why. And how it all ties up. Well. The Twenty-Four Greatest Living Irish Women began the tournament in stately fashion. That is slowly and taking care to preserve their immense dignity.  On Friday they drew a game with our generous hosts in lovely Inniscarra. It was a game which they might have won, but really should have lost. They withdrew to lick their wounds and to perform remarkable and scandalous syncopated samba routines in the Féile Parade through Cork that evening. Saturday is a long, happy blur. A soft dream of a time. The most fun any group of people have ever had in a field in Ballincollig. You'd have to know the Twenty-Four Greatest Living Irish Women for as long as we, their noble mentors/caddies, have, to feel the curious mix of confidence and trepidation with which we travelled early in the morning.  See, The Fab Twenty-Four can be both erratic and brilliant. They can die for each other or they can just be not in the mood for anything except the bartering of gossip with each other. They play and function as an aggregate of their two dozen separate personalities. They are beautiful and wild and basically nuts. Somedays, they are just collectively hormonal and we are afraid to ask them to do anything in case they rage at us.  An example: On Friday, The Grand Chief Agitator (Howya, April), who had a wonderful weekend, incidentally, had sought to initiate a robust debate on team selection during the half-time team talk. This was like moaning about somebody's second-hand smoke as they drew their final puff when lined up against a wall to be shot.  Nevertheless, we knew the Grand Chief Agitator be most peeved about the curtailment of her highly valued right to free speech, even at such an inopportune moment. Discontent can spread quickly among the Fab 24. We had no certainty about how Saturday would unfold.  The Twenty-Four Greatest Living Irish Women set into a pattern early though. They'd take a lead on a team, then let them back into the game and then finish them off. Or else, they'd take a lead on a team, then let them back into the game and then battle like lunatics to prevent the others finishing them off. Whatever, it was a pattern of sorts. Against Ballincollig, we looked condemned to another draw when Gillian Smith (if MF Show listeners had to vote for a heroic Smith, well here was one) scored a goal with just about the last poc of the game. We hugged and danced and asked them what the hell they were thinking of, leaving it so late.  Not long afterwards came the final group game. Toomevara of Tipp. Fortunately, The Twenty-Four Greatest Living Irish Women are no great respecters of reputation and Toomevara of Tipp might as well have been Tooting of Timbuktu for all they knew. The game was one of those great epics which deserved a nationwide audience. The one and only Meltem Yazar thumbed her nose at the aristocracy with a hat-trick of goals, each one more wondrous than the previous one. Then a great big generous dollop of eight minutes of injury time got added, an allotment which the Fab 24 mistakenly took to be time added on especially for Toomevara's benefit. The 24 went into injury time three points ahead. They then conceded about 6,000 frees and watched about 17,000 balls whistle wide. They reached the final whistle two points ahead. And knackered.  There's always at least one moment in a Féile weekend that you'll remember forever. For me there were two. The first came maybe an hour and a half after the Toomevara win. The girls were getting ready for an All-Ireland semi-final. They were drained, emptied, shattered, wrecked. You name it.  So the Mill Lodge Hotel became an army field camp. Twenty-four bodies lay around one end of the restaurant fast asleep in the middle of the afternoon. Legs getting massaged, wounds being tended too, words being whispered, the smell of liniments. The sight of them there, all huddled like a scattering of dropped commas, will stay with me forever.  As will an image from the end of the semi-final, a moment that has burned itself into a perfect picture in my head. The Twenty-Four Greatest Living Irish Women beat Glen Rovers. Beating the Glen meant getting into an All-Ireland final to the girls.  To the rest of us, reared on the legend of how the hurlers of St Vincent's beat Glen Rovers in a famous challenge in December 1953, a game which half-filled Croke Park, it was something even more special. A gang of kids from Marino beating the Glen! I mean, jaysus, that was The Glen!  We were gathering up the sticks and the water bottles and the Fab 24 had paused 40 yards away to clap the Glen girls as they passed out the gate on the other side of the field. Our heroes stood in one long, spread-out line before the distant hill and as we paused our tidying all we could see were these kids whom we've known for half their lives, and beyond them their smiling, clapping parents and fans. There were Vincent's jerseys and flags everywhere. The sun was going down on a postcard day.    here in the crowd, clapping, was Mark Wilson. Mark is our club president and was corner forward on that team that beat the Glen half a century ago. He was a great mentor to me as a kid. That little moment in Ballincollig brings tears to the eyes nearly a week on.  Sunday and an All-Ireland final. You have no idea. Those faces drawn and nervous sitting on the benches in the tiny dressingroom beneath Páirc Uí Chaoimh. Hearing the familiar names called out on the PA. Saying the familiar words to them. Sending them out with hope in the heart. Watching these heroes, one of them your daughter, out on the famous turf.  We were hammered by a brilliant side from Douglas. No complaints. Regrets maybe that we never got to show that we can play a bit, but hey, we shed our tears and we hugged each other and we moved on. Nobody said that they'd get drugs the next time and use them to cheat those wonderful Douglas kids.  On our way out we passed Pauric McDonald and the amazing Kilmacud Crokes hurling side who were just about to win the Division One title. Their journey was as stunning as ours was emotional.  And all those young, keen faces in Páirc Uí Chaoimh last Sunday and around Cork last weekend were the only fitting rebuke to a certain proportion of the morally challenged MF Show listenership. So to the Twenty-Four Greatest Living Irish Women, to Ais, to Claire H, to Clairo, to Happy Gilmore, to Ciara O'L, to Niamh (Yo Foxy), to JoJo, to Jessie G, to April F, to Meltem Y, to Gillian S, to Shauna O and to Irene D, to Jenny R, to Leanna B, to Johanna C, to Fionnuala J, to Carol Mc, to Róisín D, to Eimear M, to Kate P, to Orla Mc, to Jodie C and to Molly in da house, love ye all, long may ye run and please don't ever become MF Show phone-in types, or Michelle S de B sports-cheat types.    You're better than that. A million times better. May you stay forever young
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on March 07, 2017, 01:22:06 PM
Quote
I wonder....

No need to wonder dinny
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: johnneycool on March 07, 2017, 11:48:29 PM
Quote
I wonder....

No need to wonder dinny

Common knowledge at this stage I would have thought.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Aughafad on March 08, 2017, 12:28:52 AM
Now only waiting on someone to knock Roy Curtis of his perch!
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Asal Mor on March 08, 2017, 07:34:34 AM
Unfortunately, whilst Humphries is without doubt a talented and entertaining writer his stock has gone somewhat in my opinion for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, his book "Laptop Dancing and the Nanny Goat Mambo" was so strewn with basic factual errors that the amount of research done must be questioned.  Secondly, on the eve of the 2003 All-Ireland final he did a disgracefully sanitised full page article the history of the Ballygawley / Glencull split.  The article suggesting that the disagreement was a mere misunderstanding and that resolving the split was the easiet thing ever.  A good journalist would have the balls to write honestly about the story, not to appease the big names being written about.

Howeevr, he is spot on iwth Micheal Grennan.
What were the factual errors ss? I read the book years ago and at the time I really enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: LilySavage on March 08, 2017, 09:48:08 AM
Read it too, I thought it was excellent.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: LilySavage on March 08, 2017, 09:50:59 AM

I wonder....
No need to wonder dinny


Common knowledge at this stage I would have thought.


---I wonder does anybody not know who it is
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 08, 2017, 09:58:46 AM
I thought I was being facetious.

Hopefully this sc**bag gets a long time. Kimmage hammered the disgusting George Gibney and rightly so, I now want to see these same journalists hammer one of their own. Needless to say the usual omerta from his former colleagues will follow though.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: easytiger95 on March 08, 2017, 10:06:21 AM
I'd say the fact that the case was still open would have stopped them writing about it. I would think there would be a load of non Irish Times writers champing at the bit to get their spake in. And probably even the IT itself will give it a good going over.

Apart from the horrible facts of the case, the metaphorical fall of one so successful and respected will always fill newspapers. Expect full supplements on it when the sentencing is over and done with.

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on March 08, 2017, 10:14:28 AM
I'd say the fact that the case was still open would have stopped them writing about it. I would think there would be a load of non Irish Times writers champing at the bit to get their spake in. And probably even the IT itself will give it a good going over.

Apart from the horrible facts of the case, the metaphorical fall of one so successful and respected will always fill newspapers. Expect full supplements on it when the sentencing is over and done with.


only if the victims allow the names to be published . otherwise very little can be written . Just because  everyone 'knows' who it is doesn't make it Correct.
 if the Victims don't want their cases used to  sell Books and papers that is is very much their right
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Dinny Breen on March 08, 2017, 10:15:49 AM
I'd say the fact that the case was still open would have stopped them writing about it. I would think there would be a load of non Irish Times writers champing at the bit to get their spake in. And probably even the IT itself will give it a good going over.

Apart from the horrible facts of the case, the metaphorical fall of one so successful and respected will always fill newspapers. Expect full supplements on it when the sentencing is over and done with.

I hope you are right.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2017, 10:29:28 AM
I'd say the fact that the case was still open would have stopped them writing about it. I would think there would be a load of non Irish Times writers champing at the bit to get their spake in. And probably even the IT itself will give it a good going over.

Apart from the horrible facts of the case, the metaphorical fall of one so successful and respected will always fill newspapers. Expect full supplements on it when the sentencing is over and done with.

His writing wasn't even that good to begin with.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: weareros on March 08, 2017, 11:11:22 AM
I see Irish Mirror published his name and picture.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Bord na Mona man on March 08, 2017, 11:24:55 AM
Don't worry, lots of journalists will get stuck in. Even before any of this broke, there would have been sections of the journalist community who wouldn't have liked him.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Jinxy on March 08, 2017, 11:37:07 AM
That sc**bag Roman Polanski is still feted in the world of the 'arts' for the films he's made.
It's easy to condemn someone who you already didn't like, or knew nothing about.
There's often plenty of forgiveness for perpetrators of crime who have a talent, or were previously well thought of, as we know all too well in this country.
Like everyone else here, I'll be very interested in the response from this individual's journalistic peers, when the time comes.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2017, 11:59:58 AM
I'd say the fact that the case was still open would have stopped them writing about it. I would think there would be a load of non Irish Times writers champing at the bit to get their spake in. And probably even the IT itself will give it a good going over.

Apart from the horrible facts of the case, the metaphorical fall of one so successful and respected will always fill newspapers. Expect full supplements on it when the sentencing is over and done with.
It has all the ingredients of a Greek tragedy or something by Shakespeare. The randomness of the phone. The reputation. The fall.  The wife.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: saffron sam2 on March 08, 2017, 09:37:51 PM
Unfortunately, whilst Humphries is without doubt a talented and entertaining writer his stock has gone somewhat in my opinion for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, his book "Laptop Dancing and the Nanny Goat Mambo" was so strewn with basic factual errors that the amount of research done must be questioned.  Secondly, on the eve of the 2003 All-Ireland final he did a disgracefully sanitised full page article the history of the Ballygawley / Glencull split.  The article suggesting that the disagreement was a mere misunderstanding and that resolving the split was the easiet thing ever.  A good journalist would have the balls to write honestly about the story, not to appease the big names being written about.

Howeevr, he is spot on iwth Micheal Grennan.
What were the factual errors ss? I read the book years ago and at the time I really enjoyed it.

Been a day or two since I read it myself, but if I wrote it, it must be true.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Minder on March 08, 2017, 09:38:38 PM
Unfortunately, whilst Humphries is without doubt a talented and entertaining writer his stock has gone somewhat in my opinion for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, his book "Laptop Dancing and the Nanny Goat Mambo" was so strewn with basic factual errors that the amount of research done must be questioned.  Secondly, on the eve of the 2003 All-Ireland final he did a disgracefully sanitised full page article the history of the Ballygawley / Glencull split.  The article suggesting that the disagreement was a mere misunderstanding and that resolving the split was the easiet thing ever.  A good journalist would have the balls to write honestly about the story, not to appease the big names being written about.

Howeevr, he is spot on iwth Micheal Grennan.
What were the factual errors ss? I read the book years ago and at the time I really enjoyed it.

Been a day or two since I read it myself, but if I wrote it, it must be true.

Just the 10 years ago
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on March 15, 2017, 12:53:20 AM
I feel sick with myself for enjoying his writing. I know that's not logical but I feel that way. Hope he pays properly for what he has done.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: J70 on March 15, 2017, 04:53:15 PM
I feel sick with myself for enjoying his writing. I know that's not logical but I feel that way. Hope he pays properly for what he has done.

Why?

You didn't know what he was up to.

And what he was up to does not change the fact that he was a superb sports journalist.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on March 15, 2017, 05:22:11 PM
Can you disassociate like that though? When you 'like' a writer, you tend to agree with him on things, or admire his opinions, because lads like Humphries stopped being mere reporters a long time ago. They are the opinionators in the sports world. So can you disassociate what we now know about him, from his writing skill? Or does the fact that he took advantage of his position in a GAA club, and probably his position in life, to commit acts like this against a girl mean that all his writing is tainted?

Tough one.

If, as part of Humphries rehabilitation, he was allowed publish (pro bono) pieces that were purely about sport. Should he be allowed do that, and would you buy the paper that published it, or read the pieces?

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Jinxy on March 15, 2017, 07:25:44 PM
I had a few of his books and I dumped them.
I couldn't enjoy reading them.
For the same reason I would never watch any of Roman Polanski's films.
Or Woody Allen's for that matter.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on March 15, 2017, 08:28:59 PM
I remember his stuff in the 90s when it was exciting and very different to other sports journalism. But well before he got into that trouble his work was stale and predictable. I gave up reading his column around 2005. The decline professionally and the lapse into criminal behaviour are probably linked
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: shark on March 15, 2017, 08:37:51 PM
I can identify with a lot of what is being written here. I loved his writing. His Monday morning articles in the IT especially. There was one the day after Kilkenny beat Tipp in an All-Ireland semi (I think) that was particularly memorable. I went out of my way to have a conversation with him when I saw him at the Feile na Gael in Mullingar in 2003.
Since the news on him came out it feels almost disappointing that I enjoyed his writing and extremely disappointing that I enjoyed our brief conversation at the Feile. Especially given that he was there, in my club, watching a Camoige match.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Main Street on March 15, 2017, 09:25:36 PM
I have a memory of enjoying his articles and the nanny goat book, but that's an experience from the distant past and now this underage abuse just means he fades out of my memory. Whereas someone like Con Houlihan, his memory and writings will live forever.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Jinxy on March 16, 2017, 11:03:42 AM
The thing for me is if you enjoy the work of a musician, or a writer, or any sort of artist, you develop a sense of identification with them.
What they create appeals to you, therefore when you think of them, it's generally in a positive way, even if they're a bit of an asshole in real life (as many of them are).
However, we're not talking about someone punching an over zealous fan or being caught taking coke here.
Lets say you're a big Bob Dylan fan and you find out tomorrow he's murdered someone.
Could you still enjoy his music?
You can't separate the 'art' from the 'artist'.
Well, I can't anyway.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Main Street on March 16, 2017, 01:49:11 PM
The thing for me is if you enjoy the work of a musician, or a writer, or any sort of artist, you develop a sense of identification with them.
What they create appeals to you, therefore when you think of them, it's generally in a positive way, even if they're a bit of an asshole in real life (as many of them are).
However, we're not talking about someone punching an over zealous fan or being caught taking coke here.
Lets say you're a big Bob Dylan fan and you find out tomorrow he's murdered someone.
Could you still enjoy his music?

You can't separate the 'art' from the 'artist'.
Well, I can't anyway.

Strawman's argument
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Jinxy on March 16, 2017, 04:15:14 PM
How?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Avondhu star on March 16, 2017, 06:51:08 PM
Can you disassociate like that though? When you 'like' a writer, you tend to agree with him on things, or admire his opinions, because lads like Humphries stopped being mere reporters a long time ago. They are the opinionators in the sports world. So can you disassociate what we now know about him, from his writing skill? Or does the fact that he took advantage of his position in a GAA club, and probably his position in life, to commit acts like this against a girl mean that all his writing is tainted?

Tough one.

If, as part of Humphries rehabilitation, he was allowed publish (pro bono) pieces that were purely about sport. Should he be allowed do that, and would you buy the paper that published it, or read the pieces?

Thats a good idea. Send out to cover a few camogie games
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Jell 0 Biafra on March 18, 2017, 02:31:31 PM
The thing for me is if you enjoy the work of a musician, or a writer, or any sort of artist, you develop a sense of identification with them.
What they create appeals to you, therefore when you think of them, it's generally in a positive way, even if they're a bit of an asshole in real life (as many of them are).
However, we're not talking about someone punching an over zealous fan or being caught taking coke here.
Lets say you're a big Bob Dylan fan and you find out tomorrow he's murdered someone.
Could you still enjoy his music?

You can't separate the 'art' from the 'artist'.
Well, I can't anyway.

It would depend on who he killed.  I could see liking him more in certain cases.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Main Street on March 18, 2017, 09:29:49 PM
How?
Bob Dylan hasn't killed anybody so I haven't a clue how I would feel about his music in that hypothetical event. I might be affected or I might not, I don't know.
Bob Dylan's art versus the Nanny Goat's? I don't know about you  but as it stands now, nobel prize winner  Bob is a messiah in the world of art/music
I might find it difficult to separate Bob from his art or I might not and carry on appreciating his work.  but i have no difficulty with consigning Humphries'  tiny contribution   to the world of art  to the dustbin.
Therefore your argument is fallacious.

Even if you use a more realistic example , say Michael Jackson  .
If a person really liked MJ's music but believed him guilty of child sex abuse, did it affect that person's  relationship to his music?
However, even with that more realistic example, Jackson's contribution to the world of music and art is by an infinite factor, much greater than Humphries'. so I might well make an exception and still hold MJ´s music in high esteem, just as I might  Mozart's music.
 I don't have that much of a relationship with Humphries' work, in the scheme of things it made a very small contribution to art and culture in society,  it's in the past and I can just forget about it without missing a heartbeat.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Avondhu star on March 20, 2017, 11:43:59 AM
Doesn't seem to bother any in the media and music that Chuck Berry did time in jail for molesting a 14-year-old girl...
My ding a ling was about the front door bell wasnt it?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: twohands!!! on March 20, 2017, 04:33:19 PM
How?
Bob Dylan hasn't killed anybody so I haven't a clue how I would feel about his music in that hypothetical event. I might be affected or I might not, I don't know.
Bob Dylan's art versus the Nanny Goat's? I don't know about you  but as it stands now, nobel prize winner  Bob is a messiah in the world of art/music
I might find it difficult to separate Bob from his art or I might not and carry on appreciating his work.  but i have no difficulty with consigning Humphries'  tiny contribution   to the world of art  to the dustbin.
Therefore your argument is fallacious.

Even if you use a more realistic example , say Michael Jackson  .
If a person really liked MJ's music but believed him guilty of child sex abuse, did it affect that person's  relationship to his music?
However, even with that more realistic example, Jackson's contribution to the world of music and art is by an infinite factor, much greater than Humphries'. so I might well make an exception and still hold MJ´s music in high esteem, just as I might  Mozart's music.
 I don't have that much of a relationship with Humphries' work, in the scheme of things it made a very small contribution to art and culture in society,  it's in the past and I can just forget about it without missing a heartbeat.

That you know of  ;)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on June 26, 2017, 12:30:42 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/prominent-journalist-and-author-tom-humphries-to-be-sentenced-over-sex-offences-involving-underage-girl-35866057.html

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Dave like the tv channel on July 17, 2017, 03:47:33 PM
Used to love his articles. He had one or two on Howard Wilkinson in Leeds, calling Tomas Brolin a "poofta", or some such sobriquet.

Now, he's a paedo. The beard was a dead giveaway though. Like Jimmy Saville, it was as plain to see really (in hindsight).
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Dinny Breen on October 04, 2017, 11:00:58 AM
A sick bast*rd. Hope it gets a long long sentence.

And as for these two, they should hang their heads in shame.
Quote
There were character letters of support, one from a former sportswriter colleague, another from a prominent former GAA player. “He was hugely known and reported with some brilliance,” said Mr Hartnett, adding that he was now reviled in the press.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 04, 2017, 04:02:16 PM
A sick bast*rd. Hope it gets a long long sentence.

And as for these two, they should hang their heads in shame.
Quote
There were character letters of support, one from a former sportswriter colleague, another from a prominent former GAA player. “He was hugely known and reported with some brilliance,” said Mr Hartnett, adding that he was now reviled in the press.


Agree 100%.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 04, 2017, 04:33:50 PM
It could have been anyone he ghostwrote for. He is a very talented writer. In addition to everything else. He reminds me of the story Nora Mharcais Bhig. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on October 04, 2017, 05:12:57 PM
Doesn't seem to bother any in the media and music that Chuck Berry did time in jail for molesting a 14-year-old girl...
i find it safer to just not listen to music or watch TV  any more in case any of them offends my spotless moral compass
 hers just some im worried about
jerry lee lewis  married a 13 year old
James Brown gound guilty  of domestic violence
 Pete Townshend found with  child pornography
Gary glitter,,
bill cosby
johnny  Depp assaulted his wife
Rapper Flavor Flav of the group Public Enemy is arrested for  trying to shoot a  man in a dispute over a woman
Jonathan King is sentenced for series of sexual assaults on teenage boys
Derek Longmuir of the Bay City Rollers guilty of possession of child pornography.
led zepplin stole stairway to heave
chris brown assaulted rhianna
phil spector murdered Lana Clarkson
Stephen Collins,  dad on the 90s show "7th Heaven" is being investigated for child molestation.
Jay-Z stabbed record executive Lance "Un" Rivera
stephen Fry prison for fraud and theft
Tupac Shakur shots two white off-duty police officers
Pete Seeger copyrights "We Shall Overcome." weirren 50 years before his birth
Cheb Mami    abducted his former girlfriend and trieding to force her to have an abortion
ABBA member Bjorn Ulvaeus caought owing $12 in unpaid taxes
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Minder on October 04, 2017, 05:31:15 PM
A sick bast*rd. Hope it gets a long long sentence.

And as for these two, they should hang their heads in shame.
Quote
There were character letters of support, one from a former sportswriter colleague, another from a prominent former GAA player. “He was hugely known and reported with some brilliance,” said Mr Hartnett, adding that he was now reviled in the press.

Sunday Times Sports editor I saw somewhere
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Captain Obvious on October 04, 2017, 07:04:23 PM
Doesn't seem to bother any in the media and music that Chuck Berry did time in jail for molesting a 14-year-old girl...
i find it safer to just not listen to music or watch TV  any more in case any of them offends my spotless moral compass
 hers just some im worried about
jerry lee lewis  married a 13 year old
James Brown gound guilty  of domestic violence
 Pete Townshend found with  child pornography
Gary glitter,,
bill cosby
johnny  Depp assaulted his wife
Rapper Flavor Flav of the group Public Enemy is arrested for  trying to shoot a  man in a dispute over a woman
Jonathan King is sentenced for series of sexual assaults on teenage boys
Derek Longmuir of the Bay City Rollers guilty of possession of child pornography.
led zepplin stole stairway to heave
chris brown assaulted rhianna
phil spector murdered Lana Clarkson
Stephen Collins,  dad on the 90s show "7th Heaven" is being investigated for child molestation.
Jay-Z stabbed record executive Lance "Un" Rivera
stephen Fry prison for fraud and theft
Tupac Shakur shots two white off-duty police officers
Pete Seeger copyrights "We Shall Overcome." weirren 50 years before his birth
Cheb Mami    abducted his former girlfriend and trieding to force her to have an abortion
ABBA member Bjorn Ulvaeus caought owing $12 in unpaid taxes

Wasn't he around the same age when he first got married?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: red hander on October 04, 2017, 07:32:58 PM
Wow, the Swedish tax authorities don't f**k about, do they?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Rudi on October 04, 2017, 10:18:50 PM
Used to love his articles. He had one or two on Howard Wilkinson in Leeds, calling Tomas Brolin a "poofta", or some such sobriquet.

Now, he's a paedo. The beard was a dead giveaway though. Like Jimmy Saville, it was as plain to see really (in hindsight).

He looks like a peder ass alright. Some fall from grace.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on October 05, 2017, 09:12:58 AM
Doesn't seem to bother any in the media and music that Chuck Berry did time in jail for molesting a 14-year-old girl...
i find it safer to just not listen to music or watch TV  any more in case any of them offends my spotless moral compass
 hers just some im worried about
jerry lee lewis  married a 13 year old
James Brown gound guilty  of domestic violence
 Pete Townshend found with  child pornography
Gary glitter,,
bill cosby
johnny  Depp assaulted his wife
Rapper Flavor Flav of the group Public Enemy is arrested for  trying to shoot a  man in a dispute over a woman
Jonathan King is sentenced for series of sexual assaults on teenage boys
Derek Longmuir of the Bay City Rollers guilty of possession of child pornography.
led zepplin stole stairway to heave
chris brown assaulted rhianna
phil spector murdered Lana Clarkson
Stephen Collins,  dad on the 90s show "7th Heaven" is being investigated for child molestation.
Jay-Z stabbed record executive Lance "Un" Rivera
stephen Fry prison for fraud and theft
Tupac Shakur shots two white off-duty police officers
Pete Seeger copyrights "We Shall Overcome." weirren 50 years before his birth
Cheb Mami    abducted his former girlfriend and trieding to force her to have an abortion
ABBA member Bjorn Ulvaeus caought owing $12 $12million in unpaid taxes

Wow, the Swedish tax authorities don't f**k about, do they?
yet let them off scot free for dancing Queen
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: theskull1 on October 05, 2017, 09:33:17 AM
Used to love his articles. He had one or two on Howard Wilkinson in Leeds, calling Tomas Brolin a "poofta", or some such sobriquet.

Now, he's a paedo. The beard was a dead giveaway though. Like Jimmy Saville, it was as plain to see really (in hindsight).

He looks like a peder ass alright. Some fall from grace.

Yeah....theyve all got that look about them  ::)
   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 05, 2017, 01:53:28 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/prominent-journalist-and-author-tom-humphries-to-be-sentenced-over-sex-offences-involving-underage-girl-35866057.html
The most striking thing about that court apearance was that he asked to be taken into custody. Sex offender is the absolute lowest of the low in our society. Even scumbags look down on sex offenders. He probably wouldn't be safe.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on October 05, 2017, 02:15:47 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/prominent-journalist-and-author-tom-humphries-to-be-sentenced-over-sex-offences-involving-underage-girl-35866057.html
The most striking thing about that court apearance was that he asked to be taken into custody. Sex offender is the absolute lowest of the low in our society. Even scumbags look down on sex offenders. He probably wouldn't be safe.


much as it would offend the  vigilantes  on this and other site there are various kinda of Paedos there the serial agressive kind Like some one like a priest teacher social worker who seem to choose theor jobs and dedicate their lives to it the opportunistic kid like rolf harris or jimmy saville that abuse thier famous status and the kind like i suspect humphries is one who allows himself to form illegally inappropriate relationship with an underage girl .
insome way it makes him almost more Guilty as there seems to be  an element of choice in it where as the aforementioned it seems to be the driving force of the life almost unstoppable as CL Louis said
'It’s so crazy because when you consider the risk in being a child molester - speaking not of even the damage you’re doing, but the risk - there’s no worse life available to a human than being a caught child molester.' "Yet they still do it. Which you can only really surmise that it must be really good, from their point of view. It must be amazing for them to risk so much."
i dont think this is the categorey Humphries fits into
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: trileacman on October 06, 2017, 01:06:18 AM
There's a strange and unsettling fascination in modern society with paedophiles. "cut off their balls/cut off their head/burn them alive" etc etc. The indignation offered a lot of the time doesn't seem that real, like someone standing up and saying "look at me, look at how apoplectic I am at the bad thing."

I'm disgusted by pedophiles surely but I can't say it greatly enrages much more than acts of murder or rape. It's really odd that people now think they're the moral arbitrator of justice when it comes to this and vigilantism is somehow justified when directed solely against pedophiles.

It sort of puts me in mind of the death sentence, in the manner that to be wrongly sentenced to death or life imprisonment must be a terrible injustice but to be wrongly branded a paedophile must be worse again.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 06, 2017, 01:38:53 AM
There's a strange and unsettling fascination in modern society with paedophiles. "cut off their balls/cut off their head/burn them alive" etc etc. The indignation offered a lot of the time doesn't seem that real, like someone standing up and saying "look at me, look at how apoplectic I am at the bad thing."

I'm disgusted by pedophiles surely but I can't say it greatly enrages much more than acts of murder or rape. It's really odd that people now think they're the moral arbitrator of justice when it comes to this and vigilantism is somehow justified when directed solely against pedophiles.

It sort of puts me in mind of the death sentence, in the manner that to be wrongly sentenced to death or life imprisonment must be a terrible injustice but to be wrongly branded a paedophile must be worse again.
I agree. But societies are strange.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Itchy on October 06, 2017, 06:47:53 PM
There's a strange and unsettling fascination in modern society with paedophiles. "cut off their balls/cut off their head/burn them alive" etc etc. The indignation offered a lot of the time doesn't seem that real, like someone standing up and saying "look at me, look at how apoplectic I am at the bad thing."

I'm disgusted by pedophiles surely but I can't say it greatly enrages much more than acts of murder or rape. It's really odd that people now think they're the moral arbitrator of justice when it comes to this and vigilantism is somehow justified when directed solely against pedophiles.

It sort of puts me in mind of the death sentence, in the manner that to be wrongly sentenced to death or life imprisonment must be a terrible injustice but to be wrongly branded a paedophile must be worse again.
I agree. But societies are strange.

Many of us are parents and many know the innocence of a child and how vulnerable they are to manipulation by adults. When that manipulation is from vile sickos who would destroy a child life before it has started well people are right to be outraged. Personally I'd be ok with putting these evil scumbags through a mincing machine.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: befair on October 07, 2017, 01:58:49 PM
There's a strange and unsettling fascination in modern society with paedophiles. "cut off their balls/cut off their head/burn them alive" etc etc. The indignation offered a lot of the time doesn't seem that real, like someone standing up and saying "look at me, look at how apoplectic I am at the bad thing."

I'm disgusted by pedophiles surely but I can't say it greatly enrages much more than acts of murder or rape. It's really odd that people now think they're the moral arbitrator of justice when it comes to this and vigilantism is somehow justified when directed solely against pedophiles.

It sort of puts me in mind of the death sentence, in the manner that to be wrongly sentenced to death or life imprisonment must be a terrible injustice but to be wrongly branded a paedophile must be worse again.
I agree. But societies are strange.

Many of us are parents and many know the innocence of a child and how vulnerable they are to manipulation by adults. When that manipulation is from vile sickos who would destroy a child life before it has started well people are right to be outraged. Personally I'd be ok with putting these evil scumbags through a mincing machine.

The most likely perpetrators are members of the victims's family
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Dinny Breen on October 09, 2017, 11:29:02 AM
There's a strange and unsettling fascination in modern society with paedophiles. "cut off their balls/cut off their head/burn them alive" etc etc. The indignation offered a lot of the time doesn't seem that real, like someone standing up and saying "look at me, look at how apoplectic I am at the bad thing."

I'm disgusted by pedophiles surely but I can't say it greatly enrages much more than acts of murder or rape. It's really odd that people now think they're the moral arbitrator of justice when it comes to this and vigilantism is somehow justified when directed solely against pedophiles.

It sort of puts me in mind of the death sentence, in the manner that to be wrongly sentenced to death or life imprisonment must be a terrible injustice but to be wrongly branded a paedophile must be worse again.

I would never condone vigilantism, a lot of paedophile's need genuine help. With this case I am coming from the perspective of a coach and a father, Humphries has taken that young girls childhood and destroyed it, one of my values as a coach is to gain the trust of my players and not just make them better athletes but better people. Humphries in what he did is the antithesis of that value. To see David Walsh and even more sickeningly Donal Óg Cusack try to influence sentencing is disgusting. I hope he never sees the outside of a prison again.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on October 09, 2017, 11:38:34 AM
Quote
one of my values as a coach is to gain the trust of my players and not just make them better athletes but better people. Humphries in what he did is the antithesis of that value
+1
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on October 09, 2017, 11:40:41 AM
Exactly Dinny. What the f**k is Donal Óg at?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 11:42:43 AM
Couldn't agree more, very well put. I cannot understand Walsh and Cusack.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Billys Boots on October 09, 2017, 11:52:56 AM
Quote
one of my values as a coach is to gain the trust of my players and not just make them better athletes but better people. Humphries in what he did is the antithesis of that value
+1
+2
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on October 09, 2017, 12:02:05 PM
Couldn't agree more, very well put. I cannot understand Walsh and Cusack.

I disagree and not because I knew Humphries 30 years ago when we were both students. I don't think that this type of reference should have any great influence on the case, but that is up to the judge. If someone Humphries says to Walsh, please give an account of your opinion of my professional work then that is what Walsh should do. It should not imply that Walsh condones in any way the exploitation of the teenage girl.  It should then be up to the judge what he makes of that information, which is probably should be that it isn't very relevant. I'm sure that Walsh or Cusack had no direct connection with these events, they should simply provide witness in an accurate way, they should not provide different or no information based on their own view on the case.

The case is very definitely an antithesis of the proper role of a coach, and while there is a great emphasis on the sexual aspect of it a coach who encouraged young charges to take up drinking or gambling would be equally at fault.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 12:48:39 PM
Couldn't agree more, very well put. I cannot understand Walsh and Cusack.

I disagree and not because I knew Humphries 30 years ago when we were both students. I don't think that this type of reference should have any great influence on the case, but that is up to the judge. If someone Humphries says to Walsh, please give an account of your opinion of my professional work then that is what Walsh should do. It should not imply that Walsh condones in any way the exploitation of the teenage girl.  It should then be up to the judge what he makes of that information, which is probably should be that it isn't very relevant. I'm sure that Walsh or Cusack had no direct connection with these events, they should simply provide witness in an accurate way, they should not provide different or no information based on their own view on the case.

The case is very definitely an antithesis of the proper role of a coach, and while there is a great emphasis on the sexual aspect of it a coach who encouraged young charges to take up drinking or gambling would be equally at fault.


What has his professional work got to do with this? I'm sorry but I don't agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't want to be part of a scheme to get this paedophile a reduced jail term but obviously that's not a problem for Walsh and Cusack and I say shame on them for that. I think it's disgraceful.

Your comparison at the end seems weird to me. Almost like some sort of justification??? Bring forward the cases of coaches encouraging children to gamble and drink alcohol and we'll discuss them on their merits. Frankly, anything that comes across as a justification of defence of this paedophile makes me ill.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 09, 2017, 12:59:28 PM
There's a strange and unsettling fascination in modern society with paedophiles. "cut off their balls/cut off their head/burn them alive" etc etc. The indignation offered a lot of the time doesn't seem that real, like someone standing up and saying "look at me, look at how apoplectic I am at the bad thing."

I'm disgusted by pedophiles surely but I can't say it greatly enrages much more than acts of murder or rape. It's really odd that people now think they're the moral arbitrator of justice when it comes to this and vigilantism is somehow justified when directed solely against pedophiles.

It sort of puts me in mind of the death sentence, in the manner that to be wrongly sentenced to death or life imprisonment must be a terrible injustice but to be wrongly branded a paedophile must be worse again.

I would never condone vigilantism, a lot of paedophile's need genuine help. With this case I am coming from the perspective of a coach and a father, Humphries has taken that young girls childhood and destroyed it, one of my values as a coach is to gain the trust of my players and not just make them better athletes but better people. Humphries in what he did is the antithesis of that value. To see David Walsh and even more sickeningly Donal Óg Cusack try to influence sentencing is disgusting. I hope he never sees the outside of a prison again.
I think he deserves to be imprisoned but that he should also have the possibility of redemption after he has served his time. The emotions around this case are toxic. You can imagine what the 2 families are going through. His kids must be suffering as well.
And he had some problem that led to this meltdown,  most likely. You don't bombard a teenager with thousands of messages on a whim.
He reminds me of Weiner in NY  . Weiner didnt go as far but he was also very successful and lost it all.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: galwayman on October 09, 2017, 01:01:14 PM
Couldn't agree more, very well put. I cannot understand Walsh and Cusack.

I disagree and not because I knew Humphries 30 years ago when we were both students. I don't think that this type of reference should have any great influence on the case, but that is up to the judge. If someone Humphries says to Walsh, please give an account of your opinion of my professional work then that is what Walsh should do. It should not imply that Walsh condones in any way the exploitation of the teenage girl.  It should then be up to the judge what he makes of that information, which is probably should be that it isn't very relevant. I'm sure that Walsh or Cusack had no direct connection with these events, they should simply provide witness in an accurate way, they should not provide different or no information based on their own view on the case.

The case is very definitely an antithesis of the proper role of a coach, and while there is a great emphasis on the sexual aspect of it a coach who encouraged young charges to take up drinking or gambling would be equally at fault.


What has his professional work got to do with this? I'm sorry but I don't agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't want to be part of a scheme to get this paedophile a reduced jail term but obviously that's not a problem for Walsh and Cusack and I say shame on them for that. I think it's disgraceful.

Your comparison at the end seems weird to me. Almost like some sort of justification??? Bring forward the cases of coaches encouraging children to gamble and drink alcohol and we'll discuss them on their merits. Frankly, anything that comes across as a justification of defence of this paedophile makes me ill.
Why a character reference for somebody accused of offences such as this would make any difference at all is the thing I don't get.
Why would they even be accepted by the court.
Completely irrelevant imo.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on October 09, 2017, 01:09:23 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: johnneycool on October 09, 2017, 01:15:01 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.

I'd have thought the character reference would have been used in a case where it was seen that the guilty party had a one off aberration and this was seen as out of character for this individual.

Tom Humphries and his systematic abuse of this young girl over a prolonged period of time is a very different world and IMO character references should not ever have been considered.

 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 01:42:31 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.


What's brave about it?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on October 09, 2017, 01:44:59 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.

Christ. You're serious. Wow.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 02:02:43 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.


What's brave about it?

whether you agree or disagree with what they did, it is brave in that they were going to get hammered for it.


Sorry, this does not make sense. If I turn up in Cardiff tonight, take my clothes off, run on the pitch and set fire to an Irish flag - is that brave? I'd know I'd get hammered for it.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 09, 2017, 02:36:14 PM
In court cases, the defendant may provide the judge with references from a range of individuals usually from friends and neighbours through to those associated by their interaction with the defendant in terms of their work or professional standing.

In this case I would be surprised if anyone from the world of GAA would have been asked or willing to provide a reference. 

In a previous existence, I was sometimes asked to provide such references for submission to the judge.  In writing such a reference, you are instructed that you cannot refer to the actions of the defendant in the particular court proceedings as a form of mitigation, otherwise the reference would be disregarded.  All such references are considered by the judge alongside the evidence in the case.  In all cases the references form part of the court papers made available to everyone involved. Requests to me for such references have come from family members who were collecting the references for their legal representatives to evaluate before submission.  I never received requests from the defendant. I have never known whether any references I provided were ever used depending on whether the person was found guilty.

In some instances, people with no direct connection to the defendant in a personal or professional level are asked to provide references, e.g. Mickey Harte has given references for individuals because he is recognised as a specialist in his field (google this) and regarded by some as a person whose opinion on an individual and/or his family counts.  This may be the case in some of the references being provided for Humphries.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: LooseCannon on October 09, 2017, 02:41:43 PM
But he ghost-wrote Dónal óg's book.
Dónal óg willingly put his name to it.
Ewan McKenna said it on twitter.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 02:45:55 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.


What's brave about it?

whether you agree or disagree with what they did, it is brave in that they were going to get hammered for it.


Sorry, this does not make sense. If I turn up in Cardiff tonight, take my clothes off, run on the pitch and set fire to an Irish flag - is that brave? I'd know I'd get hammered for it.

Bizarre comparison - they done it as they believed was right thing to do... if you believed doing that in Cardiff tonite was the right thing to do, i guess it would be brave...


OK - differnet example. Let's go for the KKK and their Nazi brethren. They do what the do and they know they'll get hammered for it but they believe they're right. I suppose they're brave too by your definition?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on October 09, 2017, 02:53:12 PM
OK - differnet example. Let's go for the KKK and their Nazi brethren. They do what the do and they know they'll get hammered for it but they believe they're right. I suppose they're brave too by your definition?

That you think that providing a factual statement to a court is analogous to the activities of  KKK is an example of the kind of imbalanced view that threatens the integrity of such courts.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Mayo4Sam on October 09, 2017, 03:25:49 PM
The problem lies in it being a character reference. You are placing your  good name on the line vouching for this persons character. Walsh wrote in the times yesterday that he couldn’t turn his back on Humphries after knowing him for 30 years. However these two things are different. I have no problem in him supporting him, visiting him in prison, helping him rehab or at the very least not reoffend. I imagine if it was one of my friends, they still need a support network.
However vouching for their character is awful IMO, this person has none, they’ve violated a child’s trust and ruined their life.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
OK - differnet example. Let's go for the KKK and their Nazi brethren. They do what the do and they know they'll get hammered for it but they believe they're right. I suppose they're brave too by your definition?

That you think that providing a factual statement to a court is analogous to the activities of  KKK is an example of the kind of imbalanced view that threatens the integrity of such courts.


I was asking a question. I wasn't providing my opinion. The comparison for want of a better word was in the context of a definition of "brave" provided by another poster. I didn't set the definition on this thread for what is "brave" - I'm merely showing how farcical the provided definition was. If you were making any attempt to follow the thread you'd know that and not make a silly comment like that.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 03:48:27 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.


What's brave about it?

whether you agree or disagree with what they did, it is brave in that they were going to get hammered for it.


Sorry, this does not make sense. If I turn up in Cardiff tonight, take my clothes off, run on the pitch and set fire to an Irish flag - is that brave? I'd know I'd get hammered for it.

Bizarre comparison - they done it as they believed was right thing to do... if you believed doing that in Cardiff tonite was the right thing to do, i guess it would be brave...


OK - differnet example. Let's go for the KKK and their Nazi brethren. They do what the do and they know they'll get hammered for it but they believe they're right. I suppose they're brave too by your definition?

your comparisons are getting more bizarre.


I'm merely fulfilling the terms of the definition of "brave" given above to show how ridiculous it is.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 03:56:47 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.


What's brave about it?

whether you agree or disagree with what they did, it is brave in that they were going to get hammered for it.


Sorry, this does not make sense. If I turn up in Cardiff tonight, take my clothes off, run on the pitch and set fire to an Irish flag - is that brave? I'd know I'd get hammered for it.

Bizarre comparison - they done it as they believed was right thing to do... if you believed doing that in Cardiff tonite was the right thing to do, i guess it would be brave...


OK - differnet example. Let's go for the KKK and their Nazi brethren. They do what the do and they know they'll get hammered for it but they believe they're right. I suppose they're brave too by your definition?

your comparisons are getting more bizarre.


I'm merely fulfilling the terms of the definition of "brave" given above to show how ridiculous it is.

A lot of people dont do or say what they think because of fear of the consequence... derision, being ostracised, criticised or worse. So I think they'd have known would be  a backlash... so I think it was brave... No doubt you'll come up with some other example but thats my feeling in this case.


Even if something is completely wrong then it's brave to do it if you know you'll get hammered for it. That's what you're saying. I more equate bravery with standing up for what is right.

Pardon me if I'm unable to see the merit in assisting a predator paedophile get his sentence reduced.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 09, 2017, 04:21:33 PM
The thing about the justice system is that it distinginguishes between civilians and disreputable  knackers via the concept of "comes from a respectable family".  Respectable family members get shorter sentences. Habitual criminals do not. The 2 references are from respectable people.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 04:30:40 PM
I agree they are irrelevant. It's also a brave enough thing for Walsh & Cusack to do as they're hardly going to get many plaudits for doing it.


What's brave about it?

whether you agree or disagree with what they did, it is brave in that they were going to get hammered for it.


Sorry, this does not make sense. If I turn up in Cardiff tonight, take my clothes off, run on the pitch and set fire to an Irish flag - is that brave? I'd know I'd get hammered for it.

Bizarre comparison - they done it as they believed was right thing to do... if you believed doing that in Cardiff tonite was the right thing to do, i guess it would be brave...


OK - differnet example. Let's go for the KKK and their Nazi brethren. They do what the do and they know they'll get hammered for it but they believe they're right. I suppose they're brave too by your definition?

your comparisons are getting more bizarre.


I'm merely fulfilling the terms of the definition of "brave" given above to show how ridiculous it is.

A lot of people dont do or say what they think because of fear of the consequence... derision, being ostracised, criticised or worse. So I think they'd have known would be  a backlash... so I think it was brave... No doubt you'll come up with some other example but thats my feeling in this case.


Even if something is completely wrong then it's brave to do it if you know you'll get hammered for it. That's what you're saying. I more equate bravery with standing up for what is right.

Pardon me if I'm unable to see the merit in assisting a predator paedophile get his sentence reduced.

I see what your saying there lest you think I have any sympathy for a paedo. NONE. I still however think they stood by a friend which was brave considering they would get hammered for it... so we'll agree to disagree.


Fair enough. I think we just disagree on the choice of word.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 04:32:39 PM
The thing about the justice system is that it distinginguishes between civilians and disreputable  knackers via the concept of "comes from a respectable family".  Respectable family members get shorter sentences. Habitual criminals do not. The 2 references are from respectable people.


Yeah - this is something that gets on my wick. I've heard of many cases before where people have written these "character references" and I disagree entirely with them. I'd class myself as a pretty compassionate person, more willing than most to believe in people having an ability to change but when they've caused such damage - well they deserve their punishment.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Boycey on October 09, 2017, 04:37:47 PM
There's an interview with Walsh coming up on Matt Coopers show on Today FM where he explains why he gave the character reference if anyone wants to hear his explanation. Apparently it was recorded some time back but never broadcast.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on October 09, 2017, 05:00:40 PM
Fine article

http://amp.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/terry-prone/tom-humphries-writing-cannot-ameliorate-what-he-did-460564.html
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Boycey on October 09, 2017, 05:07:34 PM
Its coming up now
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: easytiger95 on October 09, 2017, 05:22:15 PM
Good God.

I know this interview was from 2012, but Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: easytiger95 on October 09, 2017, 05:23:00 PM
Walsh has a huge blind spot here.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: yellowcard on October 09, 2017, 06:30:33 PM
Monumental error of judgement from Walsh in this case. He appears to have had a blind spot for Humphries and never even countenanced the fact that he could well have been guilty. His description of him as a great man is woeful.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on October 09, 2017, 06:38:45 PM
That was unbelievable
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 09, 2017, 06:47:18 PM
Not brave, no?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Asal Mor on October 09, 2017, 10:24:01 PM
I thought it was admirably brave on Walsh's part. He'll win no friends for it and is risking a lot with his stance. Would have been the easiest thing in the world to turn his back on Humphries. It's hard to see any reason why you'd want to defend him but it took some balls.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on October 09, 2017, 10:45:31 PM
I thought it was admirably brave on Walsh's part. He'll win no friends for it and is risking a lot with his stance. Would have been the easiest thing in the world to turn his back on Humphries. It's hard to see any reason why you'd want to defend him but it took some balls.

Refusing to adjust your outlook based on new information is exactly the opposite of guts. There is no way you or anyone else can colour what both men did as brave in this context.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Asal Mor on October 09, 2017, 11:28:09 PM
I thought it was admirably brave on Walsh's part. He'll win no friends for it and is risking a lot with his stance. Would have been the easiest thing in the world to turn his back on Humphries. It's hard to see any reason why you'd want to defend him but it took some balls.

Refusing to adjust your outlook based on new information is exactly the opposite of guts. There is no way you or anyone else can colour what both men did as brave in this context.
Both men? Don't know where you're getting "both men" from.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: easytiger95 on October 10, 2017, 08:26:39 AM
I worked with Tom Humphries, casually on and off, for about four years in the early 2000s. He always came across as polite, quiet, self deprecating, and at times could be very, very funny.

When I heard the rumours, and then his name came out, I was able to deal with the fact that the person who I thought of as all of the above, was also capable of doing absolutely horrible things. And one does not cancel out the other. At the end of the day, we are judged before the law for our actions - Humphries' actions were vile, cruel and incredibly damaging to the young girls involved, who will serve their own life sentences, through no fault of their own.

Walsh's defence of him in 2012 smacks of a man being deceived, both by his friend Humphries, and by himself. To continue that defence by providing a character reference which could materially affect the sentence he receives, is inexcusable. He could stand by his friend, by visiting him, by trying to help with his family, by encouraging him to receive treatment, in any number of ways that could be conceived as compassionate and measured.

Going on record in a court, despite all the evidence presented of the incredible damage wrought by Humphries, looks like egotism at its worst. If Walsh thinks you're ok, you're ok and that is all that matters. As Chris Froome can attest.

Humphries' is not the only great journalistic reputation that will go up in flames as a result of this affair.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Croí na hÉireann on October 10, 2017, 10:43:50 AM
If a friend of mine for 30 years did something like this, hid it from me and came looking for a character reference I wouldn't be long in telling him where to go. The bravery shown by his family in reporting him is immeasurable. Thanks to them that poor girl was saved from this monster and hopefully her and her family have got their lives back on track. Walsh and Cusack will be rightfully hammered for their references, pair of idiots.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: HiMucker on October 10, 2017, 11:43:46 AM
If a friend of mine for 30 years did something like this, hid it from me and came looking for a character reference I wouldn't be long in telling him where to go. The bravery shown by his family in reporting him is immeasurable. Thanks to them that poor girl was saved from this monster and hopefully her and her family have got their lives back on track. Walsh and Cusack will be rightfully hammered for their references, pair of idiots.
This would rightly sum up my own feelings on it.  Terrible judgement call by them, Walsh in particular from what I have read.  They deserve criticism for it.  However it doesn't sit well with me the level of vitriol and vilification that has been directed at them, for what is in essence, the carrying out of an act requested by the state.  Some mentioned this earlier, what Walsh looks like a man that has been conned.  No shame in that.  That is exactly what perpetrators like Humphries do.  Betray everyone.  This nonsense of character references should be done away with especially in cases like this.  Any legal experts on here that can shine light on the merit of this practice?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 10, 2017, 11:57:58 AM
If a friend of mine for 30 years did something like this, hid it from me and came looking for a character reference I wouldn't be long in telling him where to go. The bravery shown by his family in reporting him is immeasurable. Thanks to them that poor girl was saved from this monster and hopefully her and her family have got their lives back on track. Walsh and Cusack will be rightfully hammered for their references, pair of idiots.
This would rightly sum up my own feelings on it.  Terrible judgement call by them, Walsh in particular from what I have read.  They deserve criticism for it.  However it doesn't sit well with me the level of vitriol and vilification that has been directed at them, for what is in essence, the carrying out of an act requested by the state.  Some mentioned this earlier, what Walsh looks like a man that has been conned.  No shame in that.  That is exactly what perpetrators like Humphries do.  Betray everyone.  This nonsense of character references should be done away with especially in cases like this.  Any legal experts on here that can shine light on the merit of this practice?


He was on the radio yesterday FFS. I assume he can read the court transcripts. If he was conned in 2012 then fair enough but he's still saying Humphries is a "great man".

Brave - that word again. As mentioned above, Humphries family were brave in what they did.

Easytiger - superb post.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on October 10, 2017, 12:00:01 PM
Seanie, was that interview yesterday not from 2012, or was he on again in 2017?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Croí na hÉireann on October 10, 2017, 12:04:58 PM
Seanie, was that interview yesterday not from 2012, or was he on again in 2017?

I don't think he's appeared on any radio stations or made any comment apart from this written in The Sunday Times a couple of days ago.




The interview from 2012 is here https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/I-Find-It-Incredible-That-David-Walsh-Gave-A-Character-Reference-To-Tom-Humphries (https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/I-Find-It-Incredible-That-David-Walsh-Gave-A-Character-Reference-To-Tom-Humphries)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Orchard park on October 10, 2017, 12:14:45 PM
I thought it was admirably brave on Walsh's part. He'll win no friends for it and is risking a lot with his stance. Would have been the easiest thing in the world to turn his back on Humphries. It's hard to see any reason why you'd want to defend him but it took some balls.

or incredible stupidity and arrogance
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 10, 2017, 01:09:08 PM
Humphries is going to be punished. That should be the end of it.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on October 10, 2017, 01:35:38 PM
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 10, 2017, 03:22:37 PM
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?
There has to be a distinction between 16 and below 10. At what age would it have been okay anyway? 18 ? .
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 10, 2017, 04:41:19 PM
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?

According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association and the The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders for WHO:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Legal systems will determine their own age limits where someone may engage in sexual relations/acts with a young person. Such systems assume that there is an age limit below which a young person does not have the maturity to give consent to sexual activity.  This is commonly referred to as sexual abuse of a minor.

So, technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: 5 Sams on October 10, 2017, 11:02:47 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/david-walsh-tried-to-set-up-magazine-to-benefit-tom-humphries-36212576.html?utm_content=buffere5caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Journalist David Walsh planned to set up a magazine for the financial benefit of paedophile Tom Humphries, a best-selling author has claimed.
Paul Howard said he was approached by Mr Walsh about the proposed venture in 2011 or 2012. Mr Howard, a former sports writer, declined the approach and the magazine never got off the ground.
"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," he said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that. "I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."
Mr Walsh did not return a call seeking comment.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 10, 2017, 11:27:00 PM
Seanie, was that interview yesterday not from 2012, or was he on again in 2017?


Sorry, seems I had the wrong end of the stick there.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Avondhu star on October 11, 2017, 12:02:53 AM
Seanie, was that interview yesterday not from 2012, or was he on again in 2017?


Sorry, seems I had the wrong end of the stick there.

Ooooh Matron!
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on October 11, 2017, 11:33:58 AM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/david-walsh-tried-to-set-up-magazine-to-benefit-tom-humphries-36212576.html?utm_content=buffere5caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Journalist David Walsh planned to set up a magazine for the financial benefit of paedophile Tom Humphries, a best-selling author has claimed.
Paul Howard said he was approached by Mr Walsh about the proposed venture in 2011 or 2012. Mr Howard, a former sports writer, declined the approach and the magazine never got off the ground.
"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," he said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that. "I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."
Mr Walsh did not return a call seeking comment.
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?

According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association and the The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders for WHO:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Legal systems will determine their own age limits where someone may engage in sexual relations/acts with a young person. Such systems assume that there is an age limit below which a young person does not have the maturity to give consent to sexual activity.  This is commonly referred to as sexual abuse of a minor.

So, technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 
people juding from the the comment here do not seem to see it as a psychiatric disorder most as a pure evil. I can understand that when it comes to Serial prolific abusers of teenagers ETC but when you consider the though probes behind some one who thinks sext with a baby or very young  prepubescence  child and all the abhorrence that society consider those acts it hard not to see it that way.
I have often wondered are there a great many people with those proclivities walking around who do not act on them or is the forcing themselves on people part of the disorder?
and then there's the hard questions if Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder how does it differ from other Sexual conditions/choices/inclinations such as homosexuality gender fluidness trans gender transsexuals ETC not to mention the rarer one. Can these questions ever ne raised in a academic manner any more of it it too much of a political  hot potato .
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 11, 2017, 12:01:46 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/david-walsh-tried-to-set-up-magazine-to-benefit-tom-humphries-36212576.html?utm_content=buffere5caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Journalist David Walsh planned to set up a magazine for the financial benefit of paedophile Tom Humphries, a best-selling author has claimed.
Paul Howard said he was approached by Mr Walsh about the proposed venture in 2011 or 2012. Mr Howard, a former sports writer, declined the approach and the magazine never got off the ground.
"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," he said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that. "I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."
Mr Walsh did not return a call seeking comment.
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?

According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association and the The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders for WHO:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Legal systems will determine their own age limits where someone may engage in sexual relations/acts with a young person. Such systems assume that there is an age limit below which a young person does not have the maturity to give consent to sexual activity.  This is commonly referred to as sexual abuse of a minor.

So, technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 
people juding from the the comment here do not seem to see it as a psychiatric disorder most as a pure evil. I can understand that when it comes to Serial prolific abusers of teenagers ETC but when you consider the though probes behind some one who thinks sext with a baby or very young  prepubescence  child and all the abhorrence that society consider those acts it hard not to see it that way.
I have often wondered are there a great many people with those proclivities walking around who do not act on them or is the forcing themselves on people part of the disorder?
and then there's the hard questions if Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder how does it differ from other Sexual conditions/choices/inclinations such as homosexuality gender fluidness trans gender transsexuals ETC not to mention the rarer one. Can these questions ever ne raised in a academic manner any more of it it too much of a political  hot potato .
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm)

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19 (http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on October 11, 2017, 04:28:18 PM
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/david-walsh-tried-to-set-up-magazine-to-benefit-tom-humphries-36212576.html?utm_content=buffere5caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Journalist David Walsh planned to set up a magazine for the financial benefit of paedophile Tom Humphries, a best-selling author has claimed.
Paul Howard said he was approached by Mr Walsh about the proposed venture in 2011 or 2012. Mr Howard, a former sports writer, declined the approach and the magazine never got off the ground.
"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," he said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that. "I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."
Mr Walsh did not return a call seeking comment.
honest question where why do you think people abuse children ?
is it evil or a sexual persuasion or a control thing or a mental illness or something else?
also would people make a distinction bewteen under age sex and classic pedophilia where victim has not reached puberty?

According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association and the The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders for WHO:

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

Legal systems will determine their own age limits where someone may engage in sexual relations/acts with a young person. Such systems assume that there is an age limit below which a young person does not have the maturity to give consent to sexual activity.  This is commonly referred to as sexual abuse of a minor.

So, technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 
people juding from the the comment here do not seem to see it as a psychiatric disorder most as a pure evil. I can understand that when it comes to Serial prolific abusers of teenagers ETC but when you consider the though probes behind some one who thinks sext with a baby or very young  prepubescence  child and all the abhorrence that society consider those acts it hard not to see it that way.
I have often wondered are there a great many people with those proclivities walking around who do not act on them or is the forcing themselves on people part of the disorder?
and then there's the hard questions if Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder how does it differ from other Sexual conditions/choices/inclinations such as homosexuality gender fluidness trans gender transsexuals ETC not to mention the rarer one. Can these questions ever ne raised in a academic manner any more of it it too much of a political  hot potato .
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm)

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19 (http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19)
as regards 3 the main reason would be the simple reason these are the easiest children to access. it takes a lot of preparation and cunning to groom some one as compared to abusing some one in their own home like wise social workers priests teachers coaches ETC.
and number 4 is these distinctions are political and liable to change. no funding would currently be made available to study Homosexuality V paedophilia that may turn up the wrong result. same goes for all the Various genders that are turning up week by week
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 11, 2017, 10:06:26 PM

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm)

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19 (http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19)
as regards 3 the main reason would be the simple reason these are the easiest children to access. it takes a lot of preparation and cunning to groom some one as compared to abusing some one in their own home like wise social workers priests teachers coaches ETC.
and number 4 is these distinctions are political and liable to change. no funding would currently be made available to study Homosexuality V paedophilia that may turn up the wrong result. same goes for all the Various genders that are turning up week by week

You should note that the definition of paraphilic disorders comes from a world recognised medical reference and the same medical reference does provide information of sexual orientation and gender assignment.  You should use the search function at the site address listed above to read the medical references to homosexuality and gender assignment.  As a current medical reference you will find no political interference.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: omaghjoe on October 12, 2017, 04:46:46 AM
I've often wondered about when a psychiatric disorder turns into diminished responsibility for someone who has committed a crime.

I looked it up and couldnt find anything concrete on it. Whats the difference between a sociopath and schizophrenic for example? Or more to the point why is one considered to have diminished responsibility and the other not if they both have mental disorders?

I guess you can apply the same concept to pedophiles, that if they are wired that way then is it really their fault?

But then where do you stop? Does a delinquent kid have diminished responsibility for anti social behaviour because he comes from a broken home and has had a lot of bad influences?

Does that same kid as a young man have diminished responsibility when he progresses to taking drugs, and then robbing shops and assault to feed his habit?

Take this a step further and it starts to turn into a freewill debate v our justice system
or...
We could look it another way the justice system if is nothing to do with freewill, bad choices, fairness or even justice itself its just about taking those that are deemed to be socially unacceptable out of society or a deterrent to keep them in line.

or....?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on October 12, 2017, 08:06:28 AM
Government, Medical & Legal professionals  & Society's opinion in general decides where the lines in the sand are. The real debate is who agrees with them.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: omaghjoe on October 12, 2017, 08:00:10 PM
Government, Medical & Legal professionals  & Society's opinion in general decides where the lines in the sand are. The real debate is who agrees with them.

No. the "real" (?) debate is actually the rationale for deciding when, where and how the line in the sand is drawn
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on October 12, 2017, 10:01:59 PM
Someone has to draw the line in the sand. The Government, Medical & Legal Professionals seems like a decent sort of place to start. Cant see lines in the sand by consensus working. The aforementioned institutions are the arbiters.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: omaghjoe on October 12, 2017, 11:31:17 PM
Someone has to draw the line in the sand. The Government, Medical & Legal Professionals seems like a decent sort of place to start. Cant see lines in the sand by consensus working. The aforementioned institutions are the arbiters.

I dont really care who draws the line in the sand when  it comes to diminished responsibility so long as they have a criteria and rationale to back it up which I cant seem to find anywhere.
Im guessing tho that you have no idea what is by your diversion?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on October 12, 2017, 11:47:07 PM
I'm happy to let the professionals do their stuff. Search harder, I'm sure the info is out there somewhere if you're really that interested.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: omaghjoe on October 13, 2017, 04:00:01 AM
I'm happy to let the professionals do their stuff. Search harder, I'm sure the info is out there somewhere if you're really that interested.

Thanks for your advice benny your input on this has been invaluable.
I think what I can take from your lesson is trust the experts and don't seek out their reasoning cos their probably "right".
In fact I must try that in my own job when some questions my opinion.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Sionnach on October 13, 2017, 07:56:20 AM
I've often wondered about when a psychiatric disorder turns into diminished responsibility for someone who has committed a crime.

I looked it up and couldnt find anything concrete on it. Whats the difference between a sociopath and schizophrenic for example? Or more to the point why is one considered to have diminished responsibility and the other not if they both have mental disorders?

If you're trying to look it up, the legal defence of "insanity" is originally based on the M'Naghten rules.  These are named after one Daniel M'Naghten, who tried to assassinate the British PM, Robert Peel, back in the 1840s, and ended up shooting Peel's secretary instead.  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, which caused major controversy, and the M'Naghten rules were formulated to provide clear criteria in any future such cases.  They state that

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong".

So in your example, the small minority of people with schizophrenia who commit a crime while in an acute psychotic episode may have acted because they have lost touch with reality to such an extent that they believe all sorts of paranoid delusions, and don't really know "the nature and quality of the act" or that it's "wrong". They aren't "just" influenced by previous experiences or unusual urges, their mental state is such that they have actually completely lost touch with the reality of the situation and don't fully understand what they are doing.  If that's found to be the case, there may be a defence in court.  On the other hand, a "sociopath" or "psychopath" (which BTW are not actually disorders listed in the standard psychiatric classifications) knows perfectly well what they are doing and that it is wrong.  They just don't care. 

It's not always that simple of course, and there are unavoidable grey areas and controversies.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on October 13, 2017, 04:30:36 PM

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm)

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19 (http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19)
as regards 3 the main reason would be the simple reason these are the easiest children to access. it takes a lot of preparation and cunning to groom some one as compared to abusing some one in their own home like wise social workers priests teachers coaches ETC.
and number 4 is these distinctions are political and liable to change. no funding would currently be made available to study Homosexuality V paedophilia that may turn up the wrong result. same goes for all the Various genders that are turning up week by week

You should note that the definition of paraphilic disorders comes from a world recognised medical reference and the same medical reference does provide information of sexual orientation and gender assignment.  You should use the search function at the site address listed above to read the medical references to homosexuality and gender assignment.  As a current medical reference you will find no political interference.

of course there is no reference, scientist could not let it be seen they produce anything that was not based on pure reason. but go back 50 or 100 years to similar publications and you'll find all sorts of things listed . such as similar but different condition of xenomelia(amputee identity disorder)
the change has been political.
scientist have been told the result is and their job is to back it up with theory
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 13, 2017, 04:34:39 PM
What sort of sentence are people expecting ?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: longballin on October 13, 2017, 04:52:01 PM
What sort of sentence are people expecting ?

Is it half remission in the South?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: omaghjoe on October 14, 2017, 06:59:47 AM
I've often wondered about when a psychiatric disorder turns into diminished responsibility for someone who has committed a crime.

I looked it up and couldnt find anything concrete on it. Whats the difference between a sociopath and schizophrenic for example? Or more to the point why is one considered to have diminished responsibility and the other not if they both have mental disorders?

If you're trying to look it up, the legal defence of "insanity" is originally based on the M'Naghten rules.  These are named after one Daniel M'Naghten, who tried to assassinate the British PM, Robert Peel, back in the 1840s, and ended up shooting Peel's secretary instead.  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, which caused major controversy, and the M'Naghten rules were formulated to provide clear criteria in any future such cases.  They state that

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong".

So in your example, the small minority of people with schizophrenia who commit a crime while in an acute psychotic episode may have acted because they have lost touch with reality to such an extent that they believe all sorts of paranoid delusions, and don't really know "the nature and quality of the act" or that it's "wrong". They aren't "just" influenced by previous experiences or unusual urges, their mental state is such that they have actually completely lost touch with the reality of the situation and don't fully understand what they are doing.  If that's found to be the case, there may be a defence in court.  On the other hand, a "sociopath" or "psychopath" (which BTW are not actually disorders listed in the standard psychiatric classifications) knows perfectly well what they are doing and that it is wrong.  They just don't care. 

It's not always that simple of course, and there are unavoidable grey areas and controversies.

Thanks for the answer Sionnach, not sure if I'll get another post out of ye tho ;).

Anyway Can't diminished responsibility part of a defence as well as just plain old insanity? Correct me if I'm wrong by all means and I know that the definitions vary widely under legal systems.

And why can't conduct or personality disorders (instead of socio/psychopaths, wasnt aware that they are populist terms, sorry) claim that? If they are mentally wired to not care what they are doing (wether they know its wrong or not) that still forms part of a mental incapacity to adhere to the law unlike the "standard" populace, so it stands to reason that they would have diminished responsibility or insanity?


Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Gold on October 14, 2017, 09:58:21 AM
What sort of sentence are people expecting ?

Is it half remission in the South?

3 quarters but 2 thirds for good behaviour (ie sex offenders)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on October 24, 2017, 01:07:11 PM
Two and a half year sentence.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2017, 01:17:40 PM
Two and a half year sentence.

Life sentence in the court of public opinion
If he had waited one more year would there have been a case ?

IT: "He faced a maximum sentence of five years for the sexual abuse and up to life for the grooming charges. "
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2017, 01:39:52 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tom-humphries-acclaimed-sports-writer-with-controversial-views-1.3267087

"But the bulk of his work focused on the GAA, his views of sporting perfection often expressed through the prism of hurling, football and its culture, its grass-roots credibility, the real people, the amateur ethos, the parish, the hinterland, the sense of history and belonging, the fabric.
“If there is a unit of Irish sport that feels itself securely tied to the soul of the nation, it is the GAA,” he wrote in Locker Room. "

I think this video captures it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwv2B4W9brk
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on October 24, 2017, 02:46:12 PM
2 and a half years seems very lenient. Judge said "its hard not to  feel sorry for him"  :o
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Orchard park on October 24, 2017, 02:52:24 PM
its appalling,

the garlic importer got 6 years for what was whitecollar relatively victimless crime
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: GalwayBayBoy on October 24, 2017, 02:55:24 PM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tom-humphries-acclaimed-sports-writer-with-controversial-views-1.3267087

Am I alone in thinking this reads like a eulogy of someone convicted of grooming a child? Humphries' mates in the media can't see the woods for the trees in regards to him.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Dinny Breen on October 24, 2017, 02:55:39 PM
A f**king disgrace.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: easytiger95 on October 24, 2017, 03:06:15 PM
Apparently the judge took into account his "high profile", implying that the fall from such a position could be considered part of his punishment (I wonder how does that work for a car thief with drug problems?).

Also took into account references from Walsh and Cusack and from his family.

Shameful really, he is serving two sentences concurrently, they should be consecutive.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2017, 03:09:51 PM
Apparently the judge took into account his "high profile", implying that the fall from such a position could be considered part of his punishment (I wonder how does that work for a car thief with drug problems?).

Also took into account references from Walsh and Cusack and from his family.

Shameful really, he is serving two sentences concurrently, they should be consecutive.
He came from a respectable family
 That counts for a lot under the system. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on October 24, 2017, 03:23:20 PM
Quote
He came from a respectable family
 That counts for a lot under the system.

all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Bord na Mona man on October 24, 2017, 03:25:09 PM
Apparently the judge took into account his "high profile", implying that the fall from such a position could be considered part of his punishment (I wonder how does that work for a car thief with drug problems?).

Also took into account references from Walsh and Cusack and from his family.

Shameful really, he is serving two sentences concurrently, they should be consecutive.
He came from a respectable family
 That counts for a lot under the system.
Also, he had a difficult upbringing works well too.

The sentence is similar to what others like him have been given. If the victim was younger, for example, it would have been more severe.
It should hopefully open up a debate about what are the appropriate sanctions for these crimes.

I'd expect him to shunned for the rest of his days by any community he lives in here in Ireland.
It wouldn't surprise me if he emigrated.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: GalwayBayBoy on October 24, 2017, 03:39:18 PM
Some of the illustrious contributors to the Irish Times went after George Hook in the media like a pack of wild dogs a few weeks ago. They've been noticeably quiet about Humphries. Until today that is when they print an article basically saying what a great talented chap he was with a brief mention at the end about some trouble with the Guards.

Actually beggars belief.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: GaillimhIarthair on October 24, 2017, 03:59:09 PM
2.5 years is an unbelievably lenient sentence!  With remission he could be free by the end of 2019!!  How in the hell are sentences established for crimes like this?  He probably spent a longer period of time grooming his victim! Its absolutely shocking.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on October 24, 2017, 04:53:56 PM
Apparently the judge took into account his "high profile", implying that the fall from such a position could be considered part of his punishment (I wonder how does that work for a car thief with drug problems?).

Also took into account references from Walsh and Cusack and from his family.

Shameful really, he is serving two sentences concurrently, they should be consecutive.
He came from a respectable family
 That counts for a lot under the system.
Also, he had a difficult upbringing works well too.

The sentence is similar to what others like him have been given. If the victim was younger, for example, it would have been more severe.
It should hopefully open up a debate about what are the appropriate sanctions for these crimes.

I'd expect him to shunned for the rest of his days by any community he lives in here in Ireland.
It wouldn't surprise me if he emigrated.

He may run but he can’t hide. He will be limited to where he is able to go and this will follow him everywhere. He’ll never work in journalism again
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: screenexile on October 24, 2017, 04:55:25 PM
Apparently the judge took into account his "high profile", implying that the fall from such a position could be considered part of his punishment (I wonder how does that work for a car thief with drug problems?).

Also took into account references from Walsh and Cusack and from his family.

Shameful really, he is serving two sentences concurrently, they should be consecutive.
He came from a respectable family
 That counts for a lot under the system.
Also, he had a difficult upbringing works well too.

The sentence is similar to what others like him have been given. If the victim was younger, for example, it would have been more severe.
It should hopefully open up a debate about what are the appropriate sanctions for these crimes.

I'd expect him to shunned for the rest of his days by any community he lives in here in Ireland.
It wouldn't surprise me if he emigrated.

He may run but he can’t hide. He will be limited to where he is able to go and this will follow him everywhere. He’ll never work in journalism again

Disgusting case and not close to being long enough a sentence!

If he emigrates could he not work for a newspaper under a pseudonym?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: sid waddell on October 24, 2017, 04:55:46 PM
Some of the illustrious contributors to the Irish Times went after George Hook in the media like a pack of wild dogs a few weeks ago. They've been noticeably quiet about Humphries. Until today that is when they print an article basically saying what a great talented chap he was with a brief mention at the end about some trouble with the Guards.

Actually beggars belief.

Hook deserved everything written about him for disgraceful comments made in his professional capacity. He was not on trial, he was free to say what he said and people are free to write what they want about him.

Humphries was on trial and then awaiting sentencing. Strange that you're up in arms about the lack of opinion articles which could have potentially influenced the outcome of both.





Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on October 24, 2017, 05:14:30 PM
I see the second captains lads have a podcast out discussing the outcome and the character references etc
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2017, 05:33:03 PM
Apparently the judge took into account his "high profile", implying that the fall from such a position could be considered part of his punishment (I wonder how does that work for a car thief with drug problems?).

Also took into account references from Walsh and Cusack and from his family.

Shameful really, he is serving two sentences concurrently, they should be consecutive.
He came from a respectable family
 That counts for a lot under the system.
Also, he had a difficult upbringing works well too.

The sentence is similar to what others like him have been given. If the victim was younger, for example, it would have been more severe.
It should hopefully open up a debate about what are the appropriate sanctions for these crimes.

I'd expect him to shunned for the rest of his days by any community he lives in here in Ireland.
It wouldn't surprise me if he emigrated.
I 'd say he will.emigrate. He will be hounded by the Sunday World when he is released anyway. He is in the pantheon  of great Irish criminals and sleaze bags now.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: inthrough on October 24, 2017, 06:17:52 PM
I have no time for what Tom Humphries did, he misused the power he had over a vulnerable youg girl in a truly terrible way but I have to say that I find the sanctimony on display here hard to stomach.

I seem to remember some beardy fella saying something along the lines of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Tom Humphries life is over, he is going to prison, he is estranged from his family & will never work again. Maybe we should look at this sad episode & wonder at all the other episodes of power being wielded over defenceless people in the world today & maybe even have a wee look at our own attitudes & actions before we stomp all over Tom Humphries.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on October 24, 2017, 06:28:00 PM
The sentence is disgusting given what he did, nevermind his seeming willingness to hide behind illness and drag the ordeal out for as long as possible when it did come to light.

The post above mine appears to be from a WUM account.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: T Fearon on October 24, 2017, 06:48:29 PM
Not in any way defending this sc**bag.Even through his journalistic career he was a shit stirrer,who sparked off the whole Roy Keane/ Saipan saga for example.

But surely his defence team would try every trick in the book including character references from work colleagues.These references could only be restricted to their knowledge of him professionally,which presumably was positive.The real question is why such references should have any weight at all in court.Like I'm sure Fred West was a top class bricklayer and Peter Sutcliffe a great delivery driver,but this has no impact on their other lives as serial killers.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: easytiger95 on October 24, 2017, 07:00:52 PM
I have no time for what Tom Humphries did, he misused the power he had over a vulnerable youg girl in a truly terrible way but I have to say that I find the sanctimony on display here hard to stomach.

I seem to remember some beardy fella saying something along the lines of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Tom Humphries life is over, he is going to prison, he is estranged from his family & will never work again. Maybe we should look at this sad episode & wonder at all the other episodes of power being wielded over defenceless people in the world today & maybe even have a wee look at our own attitudes & actions before we stomp all over Tom Humphries.
Tom Humphries victim has had, and faces, far more than two and a half years of horror. Forgiveness for him can only come from her. And since it would be presumptuous of us to even talk about that, all we can do is analyse the sentence he has been given, as members of the society whose laws he has transgressed.

I think that it is too lenient, for the length of it, and the for the fact that the judge openly said she was taking into account his social position before his offence was uncovered, and the references he had received.

I think that this case will spur debate with regard to sentencing guidelines and their application, as well as the use of references. The Irish Times has a good article on that aspect of it today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/with-someone-who-has-pleaded-guilty-to-abuse-you-can-t-stand-with-them-anymore-in-court-1.3267107

If deciding that the sentence doesn't fit the crime in this case, makes me sanctimonious and apparently puts me the wrong side of Jesus, then I would say "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars" - we live in a world of laws, made by men, and their fair application is more than worthy of comment. I'll leave forgiveness to the person who can grant that. And I speak as someone who once worked with Humphries and liked him as the man he presented to the world.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on October 24, 2017, 07:07:53 PM
What is the benefit of a longer sentence?
deterrence - hardly since no person in his situation would find it wise to do as he did. Deterrence of others?
rehabilitation - given then time elapsed this doesn't seem likely to have much influence
preventing re-occurance - perhaps,  but giving the phone away without deleting it etc suggest almost a wish to get caught
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: inthrough on October 24, 2017, 07:08:39 PM
The sentence is disgusting given what he did, nevermind his seeming willingness to hide behind illness and drag the ordeal out for as long as possible when it did come to light.

The post above mine appears to be from a WUM account.

Dangerous business voicing an opinion that differs from the mob nowadays.

Apart from the WUM comment, what was it exactly that I said that you disagree with or are you annoyed that not everyone is piling in to feed on the carcase.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: inthrough on October 24, 2017, 07:17:18 PM
I have no time for what Tom Humphries did, he misused the power he had over a vulnerable youg girl in a truly terrible way but I have to say that I find the sanctimony on display here hard to stomach.

I seem to remember some beardy fella saying something along the lines of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Tom Humphries life is over, he is going to prison, he is estranged from his family & will never work again. Maybe we should look at this sad episode & wonder at all the other episodes of power being wielded over defenceless people in the world today & maybe even have a wee look at our own attitudes & actions before we stomp all over Tom Humphries.
Tom Humphries victim has had, and faces, far more than two and a half years of horror. Forgiveness for him can only come from her. And since it would be presumptuous of us to even talk about that, all we can do is analyse the sentence he has been given, as members of the society whose laws he has transgressed.

I think that it is too lenient, for the length of it, and the for the fact that the judge openly said she was taking into account his social position before his offence was uncovered, and the references he had received.

I think that this case will spur debate with regard to sentencing guidelines and their application, as well as the use of references. The Irish Times has a good article on that aspect of it today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/with-someone-who-has-pleaded-guilty-to-abuse-you-can-t-stand-with-them-anymore-in-court-1.3267107

If deciding that the sentence doesn't fit the crime in this case, makes me sanctimonious and apparently puts me the wrong side of Jesus, then I would say "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars" - we live in a world of laws, made by men, and their fair application is more than worthy of comment. I'll leave forgiveness to the person who can grant that. And I speak as someone who once worked with Humphries and liked him as the man he presented to the world.

Fair points, well made. I don't say that everyone who think that the sentence is too short is sanctimonious, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's the tone of some of the posts that leaves a bad taste.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2017, 07:35:03 PM
He pleaded guilty unlike for example Graham Dwyer. He didn't force the victim to testify. He didn't threaten her family. He didn't behave like other people did in court. All of this was taken into account.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 24, 2017, 07:53:18 PM
Do the RoI courts have the same facility as those in NI to allow the PPS to appeal the sentence from the judge?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Stall the Bailer on October 24, 2017, 08:01:11 PM
He pleaded guilty unlike for example Graham Dwyer. He didn't force the victim to testify. He didn't threaten her family. He didn't behave like other people did in court. All of this was taken into account.
He didn't admit his guilt to very late on when the evidence was overwhelming and only one outcome looking likely. He has also refused rehabilitation supposedly. Doesn't sound like a contrite man. Just an evil individual.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 24, 2017, 08:05:47 PM
https://m.independent.ie/sport/donal-g-cusack-has-resigned-from-positions-at-clare-hurlers-and-sport-ireland-36257921.html
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on October 24, 2017, 08:09:24 PM
Anything I've read would seem to imply that he is very remorseful, feels that deserves all he gets and has been on suicide watch? 

Rehabilitation?? How do you rehabilitate a Paedophile? Unless you do something physical (chemical castration) , I'd say the counselling etc.. would be utter nonsense, especially to an educated man who knew exactly what he was at.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Stall the Bailer on October 24, 2017, 08:48:06 PM
Anything I've read would seem to imply that he is very remorseful, feels that deserves all he gets and has been on suicide watch? 

Rehabilitation?? How do you rehabilitate a Paedophile? Unless you do something physical (chemical castration) , I'd say the counselling etc.. would be utter nonsense, especially to an educated man who knew exactly what he was at.

If he truly is remorseful he would be doing everything to show/prove it. By not undertaken any rehabilitation supposedly and late guilt pleas etc would suggest otherwise. Being educated has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: bennydorano on October 24, 2017, 09:12:46 PM
Anything I've read would seem to imply that he is very remorseful, feels that deserves all he gets and has been on suicide watch? 

Rehabilitation?? How do you rehabilitate a Paedophile? Unless you do something physical (chemical castration) , I'd say the counselling etc.. would be utter nonsense, especially to an educated man who knew exactly what he was at.

If he truly is remorseful he would be doing everything to show/prove it. By not undertaken any rehabilitation supposedly and late guilt pleas etc would suggest otherwise. Being educated has nothing to do with it.

For show like?

What is the rehabilitation process for a Paedophile that he has turned down?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Stall the Bailer on October 24, 2017, 09:42:17 PM
Show as in showing by his actions.

She also said she considered letters from two “close friends”, as well as the fact Humphries had mental health issues and that one doctor had recommended he get psychiatric treatment.
She noted he had refused such treatment.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-journalist-tom-humphries-jailed-for-twoandahalf-years-for-the-defilement-of-a-child-36257041.html
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 24, 2017, 09:45:27 PM
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/tom-humphries-crime-trust-3662076-Oct2017/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/tom-humphries-crime-trust-3662076-Oct2017/)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: screenexile on October 24, 2017, 10:23:51 PM
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/tom-humphries-crime-trust-3662076-Oct2017/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/tom-humphries-crime-trust-3662076-Oct2017/)

There’s a proper article that d**khead in the IT should hang his head for that tribute to a paedophile!!
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 24, 2017, 10:25:04 PM
https://www.independent.ie/sport/donal-g-cusack-has-resigned-from-positions-at-clare-hurlers-and-sport-ireland-36257921.html (https://www.independent.ie/sport/donal-g-cusack-has-resigned-from-positions-at-clare-hurlers-and-sport-ireland-36257921.html)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Itchy on October 24, 2017, 11:17:58 PM
A proper article
..

https://m.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-humphries-walsh-cusackthe-shame-game-36259052.html

Them two men are a disgrace.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on October 24, 2017, 11:57:19 PM
Do the RoI courts have the same facility as those in NI to allow the PPS to appeal the sentence from the judge?

Yes
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on October 24, 2017, 11:59:08 PM
Too lenient a sentence imo. Breaching the trust of an innocent child is one of the worst crimes you can commit and should be sentenced as such.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 25, 2017, 12:01:03 AM
A proper article
..

https://m.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-humphries-walsh-cusackthe-shame-game-36259052.html

Them two men are a disgrace.


That's a fine piece. Cusack has serious questions to answer if he enabled Humphries to earn money after this all came to light as does Walsh. Shame on them indeed.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on October 25, 2017, 12:04:27 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tom-humphries-acclaimed-sports-writer-with-controversial-views-1.3267087

Am I alone in thinking this reads like a eulogy of someone convicted of grooming a child? Humphries' mates in the media can't see the woods for the trees in regards to him.

Disgraceful article
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 25, 2017, 12:06:23 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tom-humphries-acclaimed-sports-writer-with-controversial-views-1.3267087

Am I alone in thinking this reads like a eulogy of someone convicted of grooming a child? Humphries' mates in the media can't see the woods for the trees in regards to him.

Disgraceful article


Scandalous but a stark reminder of how the big shots see themselves as above the law.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on October 25, 2017, 12:17:22 AM
A proper article
..

https://m.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-humphries-walsh-cusackthe-shame-game-36259052.html

Them two men are a disgrace.


That's a fine piece. Cusack has serious questions to answer if he enabled Humphries to earn money after this all came to light as does Walsh. Shame on them indeed.

Excellent article from mackenna
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on October 25, 2017, 12:28:44 AM
McKenna seems to get abuse here but he tends to talk more sense than most of the GAA journalists.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on October 25, 2017, 12:54:41 AM
A proper article
..

https://m.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-humphries-walsh-cusackthe-shame-game-36259052.html

Them two men are a disgrace.


That's a fine piece. Cusack has serious questions to answer if he enabled Humphries to earn money after this all came to light as does Walsh. Shame on them indeed.

What is the point here? That the GAA was misled as to the real author or that criminals should never be allowed work again?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2017, 06:47:42 AM
A proper article
..

https://m.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-humphries-walsh-cusackthe-shame-game-36259052.html

Them two men are a disgrace.


That's a fine piece. Cusack has serious questions to answer if he enabled Humphries to earn money after this all came to light as does Walsh. Shame on them indeed.

What is the point here? That the GAA was misled as to the real author or that criminals should never be allowed work again?
I thought he was just responding to the section of the population that is outraged by the judge's sentence. The Tom Humphries issue is another polarising issue. 

Una Mulally also writes for the Irish Times

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-women-playing-rugby-do-not-deserve-to-be-mauled-1.3185277
WIrish media is obsessed with contrarianism and loudmouths. It is obsessed even more with the contrarian voices who are generally merely out to seek attention (the gay man opposed to marriage equality, the woman who thinks contemporary feminism is damaging, the “right on” person who wants to police the tone of rights campaigners, the “liberal” guy who thinks there’s a conspiracy of “groupthink” or “consensus”). It’s all so basic. It’s all so intellectually underdeveloped, populated by people who don’t realise that these arguments have been hashed out so many times before, and have the arrogance or just self-propelling cynicism to think that their hot take is unique. We’ve heard it all before. Yet these contrarian voices are being brought to the fore, even when the represent nobody but their own personal grievances."
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on October 25, 2017, 08:29:12 AM
The stuff around character references in the justice system is a strange one. I seem to remember Mickey Harte giving one as well to a sex offender?
That journal article is the best of read on the Humphries case 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: mup on October 25, 2017, 09:09:48 AM
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 25, 2017, 09:14:47 AM
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?


I think his powers of judgement are in question. How would he react if he suspected impropriety involving a good friend who's a team manager or selector? One would hope he has learned his lesson and frankly, being involved in the GAA all his life he should have already known this.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Declan on October 25, 2017, 09:24:34 AM
Quote
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't have a problem
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Keyser soze on October 25, 2017, 09:25:02 AM
Is he still involved with the GPA at a high level?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: longballin on October 25, 2017, 09:54:47 AM
Ewan McKenna has highlighted Harte case involving a reference for sex attacker...  is there similarity?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/womans-fury-as-sex-attacker-given-reference-by-gaa-boss-harte-is-jailed-for-twoandahalf-years-29102469.html
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Croí na hÉireann on October 25, 2017, 10:03:38 AM
Apparently the judge took into account his "high profile", implying that the fall from such a position could be considered part of his punishment (I wonder how does that work for a car thief with drug problems?).

Also took into account references from Walsh and Cusack and from his family.

Shameful really, he is serving two sentences concurrently, they should be consecutive.
He came from a respectable family
 That counts for a lot under the system.
Also, he had a difficult upbringing works well too.

The sentence is similar to what others like him have been given. If the victim was younger, for example, it would have been more severe.
It should hopefully open up a debate about what are the appropriate sanctions for these crimes.

I'd expect him to shunned for the rest of his days by any community he lives in here in Ireland.
It wouldn't surprise me if he emigrated.

He may run but he can’t hide. He will be limited to where he is able to go and this will follow him everywhere. He’ll never work in journalism again

Disgusting case and not close to being long enough a sentence!

If he emigrates could he not work for a newspaper under a pseudonym?

Talk Cusack was getting him to ghostwrite his column for the Examiner recently and the one he had on gaa.ie a couple of years ago. Of course that little shithead has gone to ground and refuses to answer any o these queries that are being put to him. Putting out his "statement" at 11pm on a Saturday evening after all the Sunday papers had gone to press is as cynical as it gets. Not the actions of a contrite man.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on October 25, 2017, 10:21:19 AM
Ewan McKenna has highlighted Harte case involving a reference for sex attacker...  is there similarity?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/womans-fury-as-sex-attacker-given-reference-by-gaa-boss-harte-is-jailed-for-twoandahalf-years-29102469.html


Is there another source other that the belfast telegraph......I don't want to click into their rag. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: longballin on October 25, 2017, 10:36:27 AM
Is hardly an unknown case... can you open a BBC link? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-21612799
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2017, 10:48:15 AM
That article from the journal is excellent. Dunphy was on TV 3 last night and said he was misled. Walsh and Cusack probably were too. The public reaction to the case has been very strong as well. Humphries really left a clusterfuck behind. The Indo is loving taking lumps out of the Irish Times.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: sid waddell on October 25, 2017, 11:01:17 AM
That article from the journal is excellent. Dunphy was on TV 3 last night and said he was misled. Walsh and Cusack probably were too. The public reaction to the case has been very strong as well. Humphries really left a clusterfuck behind. The Indo is loving taking lumps out of the Irish Times.

The Irish Independent currently employs a columnist who is happy to brand somebody on Twitter "a ferocious nonce and pedo" (sic).

That columnist is Ian O'Doherty.

They also employ George Hook, who is happy to throw around generalised victim blaming in regard to rape.

They really don't have very much high moral ground to stand on.







Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: screenexile on October 25, 2017, 11:08:11 AM
Quote
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't have a problem

He made an error of judgment in writing a letter to support his friend. It was a mistake but I don't think he needs to be excommunicated for it!
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: theskull1 on October 25, 2017, 11:08:35 AM
That article from the journal is excellent. Dunphy was on TV 3 last night and said he was misled. Walsh and Cusack probably were too. The public reaction to the case has been very strong as well. Humphries really left a clusterfuck behind. The Indo is loving taking lumps out of the Irish Times.

When were the character references written? Finding it difficult to understand what way these media savvy sorts could allow themselves to be misled. Also haven't seen Walsh and D Og using that excuse although I might have missed that
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Croí na hÉireann on October 25, 2017, 11:26:46 AM
That article from the journal is excellent. Dunphy was on TV 3 last night and said he was misled. Walsh and Cusack probably were too. The public reaction to the case has been very strong as well. Humphries really left a clusterfuck behind. The Indo is loving taking lumps out of the Irish Times.

When were the character references written? Finding it difficult to understand what way these media savvy sorts could allow themselves to be misled. Also haven't seen Walsh and D Og using that excuse although I might have missed that

Character references were written after the guilty plea last March and before the sentence hearing at the start of this month.

Walsh and D Og have said f**k all apart from a couple of mealy mouthed statements. Any attributes to them being misled have come from others who claim they were misled. For example, Dunphy on TV3 last night said he went to visit Humphries in St. Pat's as he was misled about the case by someone who, in turn, he believed was misled by Humphries. When pressed by Matt Cooper who this someone was, Dunphy said that he believes that David Walsh was misled.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: T Fearon on October 25, 2017, 11:27:13 AM
If you are convicted of a serious crime,and one you plead guilty to,character references should have no bearing whatsoever.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Itchy on October 25, 2017, 11:51:01 AM
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't be happy but I would stop short of running him out of a club, at best has shown a poor level of judgement and worst he is being loyal to a child abuser because he helped him out previously in a business arrangement. That being said I don't trust anyone with my kids in that I will not allow a situation to develop where my child is on their own with an adult at any time. I would advise all parents to do the same and all clubs to ensure such a thing never happens. Thats a far more preventative measure than Vetting ever will be.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2017, 11:59:44 AM
If you are convicted of a serious crime,and one you plead guilty to,character references should have no bearing whatsoever.
Judas is unfairly scapegoated by the church given that somebody had to do it.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: inthrough on October 25, 2017, 01:00:03 PM
Quote
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't have a problem

He made an error of judgment in writing a letter to support his friend. It was a mistake but I don't think he needs to be excommunicated for it!

This is beginning to get ridiculous now. Donal Óg has made a judgement call in support of a friend. Are we now saying that our moral outrage extends to anyone who doesn't abandon a friend when that friend is in the wrong? Not much of a friend if so.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Lar Naparka on October 25, 2017, 01:16:48 PM
Quote
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't have a problem
And neither would I. I'd base my opinion of Cusack on what I would have seen and known of both his character and coaching ability and not on what he said about Humphries.  I don't think anything he said could be lead anyone to the conclusion that he condoned what had been done to that child nor would what he said would have affected the judge's ultimate decision. It was up to her to decide what was admissible or not.
For what it's worth, I think Humphries got away lightly but that can't be put down to Donal Óg's submission.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on October 25, 2017, 01:21:02 PM
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't be happy but I would stop short of running him out of a club, at best has shown a poor level of judgement and worst he is being loyal to a child abuser because he helped him out previously in a business arrangement. That being said I don't trust anyone with my kids in that I will not allow a situation to develop where my child is on their own with an adult at any time. I would advise all parents to do the same and all clubs to ensure such a thing never happens. Thats a far more preventative measure than Vetting ever will be.

That's not just you, that's the rule and part of the Child Welfare policy. An Adult can never be alone with a juvenile, so things like lifts to games etc have to be carefully managed so that at least there is one other adult or one other child in the car for e.g.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: T Fearon on October 25, 2017, 01:33:59 PM
Judas betrayed Jesus for money.While this was necessary there was an undoubted and intended subtext of the wretchedness and perversion of placing the material ahead of the spiritual.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2017, 03:10:03 PM
Judas betrayed Jesus for money.While this was necessary there was an undoubted and intended subtext of the wretchedness and perversion of placing the material ahead of the spiritual.
It was to fulfil Scripture so it was not Judas fault
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on October 25, 2017, 03:29:52 PM
Judas betrayed Jesus for money.While this was necessary there was an undoubted and intended subtext of the wretchedness and perversion of placing the material ahead of the spiritual.
It was to fulfil Scripture so it was not Judas fault

Judas'
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 25, 2017, 03:32:26 PM
Judas betrayed Jesus for money.While this was necessary there was an undoubted and intended subtext of the wretchedness and perversion of placing the material ahead of the spiritual.
It was to fulfil Scripture so it was not Judas fault

Judas'
Jaysus!
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: mup on October 25, 2017, 03:43:05 PM
Quote
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't have a problem

He made an error of judgment in writing a letter to support his friend. It was a mistake but I don't think he needs to be excommunicated for it!

This is beginning to get ridiculous now. Donal Óg has made a judgement call in support of a friend. Are we now saying that our moral outrage extends to anyone who doesn't abandon a friend when that friend is in the wrong? Not much of a friend if so.

I'm asking a question. I'm not suggesting anything at all.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: mup on October 25, 2017, 03:45:42 PM
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't be happy but I would stop short of running him out of a club, at best has shown a poor level of judgement and worst he is being loyal to a child abuser because he helped him out previously in a business arrangement. That being said I don't trust anyone with my kids in that I will not allow a situation to develop where my child is on their own with an adult at any time. I would advise all parents to do the same and all clubs to ensure such a thing never happens. Thats a far more preventative measure than Vetting ever will be.

That's not just you, that's the rule and part of the Child Welfare policy. An Adult can never be alone with a juvenile, so things like lifts to games etc have to be carefully managed so that at least there is one other adult or one other child in the car for e.g.

I'm often been in that predicament where kids would be looking for a lift. I'd have to think about the dropping off after and if I think I'd be on my own with one of them I'd bring one of my own kids. Otherwise I'd have to refuse lifts.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: screenexile on October 25, 2017, 03:50:26 PM
As a matter if interest what would peoples opinions be on Cusack training a juvenile team in a club following this? Would you be happy for your child to be part of a team managed by him?

I wouldn't be happy but I would stop short of running him out of a club, at best has shown a poor level of judgement and worst he is being loyal to a child abuser because he helped him out previously in a business arrangement. That being said I don't trust anyone with my kids in that I will not allow a situation to develop where my child is on their own with an adult at any time. I would advise all parents to do the same and all clubs to ensure such a thing never happens. Thats a far more preventative measure than Vetting ever will be.

That's not just you, that's the rule and part of the Child Welfare policy. An Adult can never be alone with a juvenile, so things like lifts to games etc have to be carefully managed so that at least there is one other adult or one other child in the car for e.g.

I'm often been in that predicament where kids would be looking for a lift. I'd have to think about the dropping off after and if I think I'd be on my own with one of them I'd bring one of my own kids. Otherwise I'd have to refuse lifts.

It's crazy!! When I was playing underage this was never an issue for me or my parents to take a lift with one of the managers or someone else's parent. . . I would venture that the risk of being preyed upon was worse then than it is now.

Is it the fact that the world is getting smaller and we're more aware of these incidents happening now than we were in the past or are we just super cautious in not taking a chance.

By the way I wouldn't let my daughters get in the car alone with a manager or adult unless it was family that I trusted but then who can you trust when it comes to this?!
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: sambostar on October 30, 2017, 06:39:03 PM
Can someone clarify did Walsh or Cusack not have the option to retract or disallow their statements to be used once Humphries pleaded guilty or when they heard all the evidence?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on October 30, 2017, 06:48:01 PM
Kimmage's conclusion is very good

"Tom Humphries was one of the all-time great sportswriters but he'll never write about sport again.

He won't be remembered for his talent. He will be remembered for sending images of his penis to a 14-year-old school girl.

He will be remembered for bombarding her with 16,000 sexually explicit text messages.  "
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Croí na hÉireann on October 31, 2017, 10:01:35 AM
Can someone clarify did Walsh or Cusack not have the option to retract or disallow their statements to be used once Humphries pleaded guilty or when they heard all the evidence?

Ex High Court judge said on TV3 Tonight Show that there was no reason they couldn't have withdrawn their character references between the hearing and the delivery of the sentencing if they wanted.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Maiden1 on October 31, 2017, 10:42:49 AM
Can someone clarify did Walsh or Cusack not have the option to retract or disallow their statements to be used once Humphries pleaded guilty or when they heard all the evidence?

Ex High Court judge said on TV3 Tonight Show that there was no reason they couldn't have withdrawn their character references between the hearing and the delivery of the sentencing if they wanted.
Isn't that the whole point of a character reference I.e. it is only used after the person is found guilty. There would be no need for a character reference if they are found innocent.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: sambostar on October 31, 2017, 11:09:16 AM
Can someone clarify did Walsh or Cusack not have the option to retract or disallow their statements to be used once Humphries pleaded guilty or when they heard all the evidence?

Ex High Court judge said on TV3 Tonight Show that there was no reason they couldn't have withdrawn their character references between the hearing and the delivery of the sentencing if they wanted.
Isn't that the whole point of a character reference I.e. it is only used after the person is found guilty. There would be no need for a character reference if they are found innocent.
Yes, agreed. But I thought either or both had used the argument that they were misled or didn't know the full story when giving the original references. If there was an opportunity for them to be withdrawn pre-sentencing then this argument is irrelevant. It casts both in a very poor light.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: haranguerer on October 31, 2017, 11:46:16 AM
They're not commenting on the crime. They're commenting on their experience of Tom Humphries. How exactly would their experience of their friend change if he was found guilty of something they didn't know about?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: hardstation on October 31, 2017, 11:50:08 AM
They're not commenting on the crime. They're commenting on their experience of Tom Humphries. How exactly would their experience of their friend change if he was found guilty of something they didn't know about?
I agree but by the same token, why should this be taken into consideration during the judicial process?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: vallankumous on October 31, 2017, 12:00:18 PM

I agree but by the same token, why should this be taken into consideration during the judicial process?

There is usually more to a person than the charges before the judge. It's rarely a case of someone being all good or all bad but they can be all good or all bad on one thing.
If that thing is the matter being discussed a judge might find one way or the other within a narrow narrative.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: hardstation on October 31, 2017, 12:03:50 PM
But if these are presented by the defence who have sought "friends" of the accused to give a positive report, the bias of such should surely make them redundant?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: vallankumous on October 31, 2017, 12:08:28 PM
But if these are presented by the defence who have sought "friends" of the accused to give a positive report, the bias of such should surely make them redundant?

I suppose we leave that to the judge and are expected to have some faith in their ability to judge. They are not for the a Jury.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Croí na hÉireann on October 31, 2017, 12:52:40 PM
Can someone clarify did Walsh or Cusack not have the option to retract or disallow their statements to be used once Humphries pleaded guilty or when they heard all the evidence?

Ex High Court judge said on TV3 Tonight Show that there was no reason they couldn't have withdrawn their character references between the hearing and the delivery of the sentencing if they wanted.
Isn't that the whole point of a character reference I.e. it is only used after the person is found guilty. There would be no need for a character reference if they are found innocent.
Yes, agreed. But I thought either or both had used the argument that they were misled or didn't know the full story when giving the original references. If there was an opportunity for them to be withdrawn pre-sentencing then this argument is irrelevant. It casts both in a very poor light.

There has been nothing from Walsh to the best of my knowledge saying that he was misled, the likes of Dunphy have said that they were misled by him and that they believe he himself was misled. Cusack's paltry statement that he released in the dead of night when all the Sunday papers had gone to print said that he "showed a lack of judgement in this situation for which I am genuinely sorry". Surely if you make a decision you later regret, are genuinely sorry about it and there's an avenue to rectify the situation then you take that opportunity. Actions, not words in the dead of night.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: haranguerer on October 31, 2017, 02:08:36 PM
But if these are presented by the defence who have sought "friends" of the accused to give a positive report, the bias of such should surely make them redundant?

They're for sentencing, not guilt, so I can't imagine they're really related to the defence. In the same way the victim impact statements aren't really related to the prosecution - these are only relevant after that stage (and are equally 'biased').

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: haranguerer on October 31, 2017, 02:13:04 PM
Can someone clarify did Walsh or Cusack not have the option to retract or disallow their statements to be used once Humphries pleaded guilty or when they heard all the evidence?

Ex High Court judge said on TV3 Tonight Show that there was no reason they couldn't have withdrawn their character references between the hearing and the delivery of the sentencing if they wanted.
Isn't that the whole point of a character reference I.e. it is only used after the person is found guilty. There would be no need for a character reference if they are found innocent.
Yes, agreed. But I thought either or both had used the argument that they were misled or didn't know the full story when giving the original references. If there was an opportunity for them to be withdrawn pre-sentencing then this argument is irrelevant. It casts both in a very poor light.

There has been nothing from Walsh to the best of my knowledge saying that he was misled, the likes of Dunphy have said that they were misled by him and that they believe he himself was misled. Cusack's paltry statement that he released in the dead of night when all the Sunday papers had gone to print said that he "showed a lack of judgement in this situation for which I am genuinely sorry". Surely if you make a decision you later regret, are genuinely sorry about it and there's an avenue to rectify the situation then you take that opportunity. Actions, not words in the dead of night.

They regret they did what they did because of the ensuing witch hunt. The right action to take would have been to stand by their convictions regardless of the flak.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on October 31, 2017, 02:41:48 PM
But if these are presented by the defence who have sought "friends" of the accused to give a positive report, the bias of such should surely make them redundant?

They're for sentencing, not guilt, so I can't imagine they're really related to the defence. In the same way the victim impact statements aren't really related to the prosecution - these are only relevant after that stage (and are equally 'biased').

Victim impact statements shouldn't really be taken into account though - if I'm drink driving & knock down a sixty year old junkie with no family or a young woman with two children who end up being taken into care,  it's the same crime I've committed
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: hardstation on October 31, 2017, 02:48:25 PM
But if these are presented by the defence who have sought "friends" of the accused to give a positive report, the bias of such should surely make them redundant?

They're for sentencing, not guilt, so I can't imagine they're really related to the defence. In the same way the victim impact statements aren't really related to the prosecution - these are only relevant after that stage (and are equally 'biased').
These are presented by the defence, in the hope of a more leniant sentence. At least, that's my understanding. My point is that I don't see the relevance of somebody's mate saying he's usually sound, when it comes to sentencing.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: haranguerer on October 31, 2017, 02:59:38 PM
Macdanger makes the same point re victim impact statements and I'd agree with both.

I'd imagine victim impact statements are around to allow victims even the impression of some input into the trial, and it seems logical that if you're allowing that you also allow someone to speak up on behalf of the defendant.

I can't imagine judges take either very seriously - at least, they shouldn't.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: vallankumous on October 31, 2017, 03:40:12 PM
Macdanger makes the same point re victim impact statements and I'd agree with both.

I'd imagine victim impact statements are around to allow victims even the impression of some input into the trial, and it seems logical that if you're allowing that you also allow someone to speak up on behalf of the defendant.

I can't imagine judges take either very seriously - at least, they shouldn't.

Maybe but they can also do other things. If the judge sees the charge is GBH and there is a plea of guilty the judge can look at notes and precedent and medical reports to decide the sentence. If however the victim has had other life impacts (maybe some phobia) that was not admissible it can still be given to the judge pre-sentence for consideration.

It will not affect the guilty plea.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: haranguerer on October 31, 2017, 03:42:42 PM
Of course, but we're discussing character references here (and by extension victim impact statements), not the other things taken into account when sentencing
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Main Street on November 06, 2017, 09:07:36 PM
They're not commenting on the crime. They're commenting on their experience of Tom Humphries. How exactly would their experience of their friend change if he was found guilty of something they didn't know about?
I agree but by the same token, why should this be taken into consideration during the judicial process?
Character references do refer directly to the charge in the context of the accused, otherwise a reference would have little relevance.
'I have known Joe Blogs for 30 years and I can say in all honesty that I have never known him to drive under the affluence of alcohol before, I believe this incident is an aberration and Joe has learned his lesson as he is a responsible person etc etc.'

It's up those who write a reference to be well acquainted with the charges and to know the plea of the accused. Walsh referred to the charges and the terrible suffering on the young girl in his reference, though overall it contained little else of note.
The judge did say she took into consideration the 2 references and also the mitigation factors into the sentencing. Those factors were the guilty plea and the big fall from grace. I doubt if Walsh's character reference held much if any weight with the judge. The judge appeared to put much focus on the fall from grace of the accused.

My gripe is that such a fall from grace is a mitigation factor in this sentencing as opposed to the depth of the trauma held by the young girl. If an elderly adult coach with zero public profile had groomed a young girl and had sex with her, would he have received a more lengthy sentence because he had not been seen to be already punished by such a fall from lofty grace?
I'd say the priority criteria for mitigation with the sentencing should lie elsewhere.

Was there any claim for damages by the young girl? was there even an offer made?
Is it up to the family to provide the cost for psychological support?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 06, 2017, 11:02:03 PM
They're not commenting on the crime. They're commenting on their experience of Tom Humphries. How exactly would their experience of their friend change if he was found guilty of something they didn't know about?
I agree but by the same token, why should this be taken into consideration during the judicial process?
Character references do refer directly to the charge in the context of the accused, otherwise a reference would have little relevance.
'I have known Joe Blogs for 30 years and I can say in all honesty that I have never known him to drive under the affluence of alcohol before, I believe this incident is an aberration and Joe has learned his lesson as he is a responsible person etc etc.'

It's up those who write a reference to be well acquainted with the charges and to know the plea of the accused. Walsh referred to the charges and the terrible suffering on the young girl in his reference, though overall it contained little else of note.
The judge did say she took into consideration the 2 references and also the mitigation factors into the sentencing. Those factors were the guilty plea and the big fall from grace. I doubt if Walsh's character reference held much if any weight with the judge. The judge appeared to put much focus on the fall from grace of the accused.

My gripe is that such a fall from grace is a mitigation factor in this sentencing as opposed to the depth of the trauma held by the young girl. If an elderly adult coach with zero public profile had groomed a young girl and had sex with her, would he have received a more lengthy sentence because he had not been seen to be already punished by such a fall from lofty grace?
I'd say the priority criteria for mitigation with the sentencing should lie elsewhere.

Was there any claim for damages by the young girl? was there even an offer made?
Is it up to the family to provide the cost for psychological support?

There are rules in writing a reference for a court case.  The main one is that you must not refer to the offence in the reference.  You may write about the character of the individual but not make statements regarding the crime.
Lawyers will select references from the range provided and choose those from individuals across the social and professional spectrum to build a favourable picture of the defendant.

Damages can be claimed from victims' funds provided by the state such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Main Street on November 07, 2017, 01:25:26 AM
They're not commenting on the crime. They're commenting on their experience of Tom Humphries. How exactly would their experience of their friend change if he was found guilty of something they didn't know about?
I agree but by the same token, why should this be taken into consideration during the judicial process?
Character references do refer directly to the charge in the context of the accused, otherwise a reference would have little relevance.
'I have known Joe Blogs for 30 years and I can say in all honesty that I have never known him to drive under the affluence of alcohol before, I believe this incident is an aberration and Joe has learned his lesson as he is a responsible person etc etc.'

It's up those who write a reference to be well acquainted with the charges and to know the plea of the accused. Walsh referred to the charges and the terrible suffering on the young girl in his reference, though overall it contained little else of note.
The judge did say she took into consideration the 2 references and also the mitigation factors into the sentencing. Those factors were the guilty plea and the big fall from grace. I doubt if Walsh's character reference held much if any weight with the judge. The judge appeared to put much focus on the fall from grace of the accused.

My gripe is that such a fall from grace is a mitigation factor in this sentencing as opposed to the depth of the trauma held by the young girl. If an elderly adult coach with zero public profile had groomed a young girl and had sex with her, would he have received a more lengthy sentence because he had not been seen to be already punished by such a fall from lofty grace?
I'd say the priority criteria for mitigation with the sentencing should lie elsewhere.

Was there any claim for damages by the young girl? was there even an offer made?
Is it up to the family to provide the cost for psychological support?

There are rules in writing a reference for a court case.  The main one is that you must not refer to the offence in the reference.  You may write about the character of the individual but not make statements regarding the crime.
Lawyers will select references from the range provided and choose those from individuals across the social and professional spectrum to build a favourable picture of the defendant.

Damages can be claimed from victims' funds provided by the state such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
If what you say is true then it would make  a reference even more worthless in court.
However,
according to Walsh he referred to the crime in his  reference
It was reported that 
'Walsh expressed shock at his offending´ in the reference

According to senior counsel Michael O’Higgins

http://www.newstalk.com/Barrister-denounces-backlash-against-Tom-Humphries-character-referees (http://www.newstalk.com/Barrister-denounces-backlash-against-Tom-Humphries-character-referees)

He said criminal sentences are made up of five or six components – adding that while character references are taken into account, they are “at the back-end of the queue.”

In every reference; in any case; a person providing the reference will be directed to say, ‘I know the circumstances of the case and I absolutely abhor and do not condone the behaviour,’” he said.

“They then go on to comment on that aspect of the personality that they know - and it is to put a full picture before the court.

“I think people get angry because in some way or another they think it is an insult to the victim or in some way or another they think they are condoning the actions and it is neither of those things.

“It is a way of putting down one piece in a rather large jigsaw. It has a place but its place can be very easily overstated.”
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on November 07, 2017, 04:04:57 AM
They're not commenting on the crime. They're commenting on their experience of Tom Humphries. How exactly would their experience of their friend change if he was found guilty of something they didn't know about?
I agree but by the same token, why should this be taken into consideration during the judicial process?
Character references do refer directly to the charge in the context of the accused, otherwise a reference would have little relevance.
'I have known Joe Blogs for 30 years and I can say in all honesty that I have never known him to drive under the affluence of alcohol before, I believe this incident is an aberration and Joe has learned his lesson as he is a responsible person etc etc.'

It's up those who write a reference to be well acquainted with the charges and to know the plea of the accused. Walsh referred to the charges and the terrible suffering on the young girl in his reference, though overall it contained little else of note.
The judge did say she took into consideration the 2 references and also the mitigation factors into the sentencing. Those factors were the guilty plea and the big fall from grace. I doubt if Walsh's character reference held much if any weight with the judge. The judge appeared to put much focus on the fall from grace of the accused.

My gripe is that such a fall from grace is a mitigation factor in this sentencing as opposed to the depth of the trauma held by the young girl. If an elderly adult coach with zero public profile had groomed a young girl and had sex with her, would he have received a more lengthy sentence because he had not been seen to be already punished by such a fall from lofty grace?
I'd say the priority criteria for mitigation with the sentencing should lie elsewhere.

Was there any claim for damages by the young girl? was there even an offer made?
Is it up to the family to provide the cost for psychological support?

There are rules in writing a reference for a court case.  The main one is that you must not refer to the offence in the reference.  You may write about the character of the individual but not make statements regarding the crime.
Lawyers will select references from the range provided and choose those from individuals across the social and professional spectrum to build a favourable picture of the defendant.

Damages can be claimed from victims' funds provided by the state such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
If what you say is true then it would make  a reference even more worthless in court.
However,
according to Walsh he referred to the crime in his  reference
It was reported that 
'Walsh expressed shock at his offending´ in the reference

According to senior counsel Michael O’Higgins

http://www.newstalk.com/Barrister-denounces-backlash-against-Tom-Humphries-character-referees (http://www.newstalk.com/Barrister-denounces-backlash-against-Tom-Humphries-character-referees)

He said criminal sentences are made up of five or six components – adding that while character references are taken into account, they are “at the back-end of the queue.”

In every reference; in any case; a person providing the reference will be directed to say, ‘I know the circumstances of the case and I absolutely abhor and do not condone the behaviour,’” he said.

“They then go on to comment on that aspect of the personality that they know - and it is to put a full picture before the court.

“I think people get angry because in some way or another they think it is an insult to the victim or in some way or another they think they are condoning the actions and it is neither of those things.

“It is a way of putting down one piece in a rather large jigsaw. It has a place but its place can be very easily overstated.”

Most prisoners in Roi come from 3 areas.  Inner city Dublin, Tallaght and Darndale. Character references help mitigate sentences for people from other areas .Criminal can be habitual or once off. The crime may be as a result of a personal traged or it may be systematic. The character reference examines this

 Sex crimes are different because they are also committed by middle class people.  And everyone looks down on paedophiles.   Even scobies. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Main Street on November 07, 2017, 01:11:31 PM
Most prisoners in Roi come from 3 areas.  Inner city Dublin, Tallaght and Darndale. Character references help mitigate sentences for people from other areas .Criminal can be habitual or once off. The crime may be as a result of a personal traged or it may be systematic. The character reference examines this
For the record, it is not location but social/economic status which determines the likelihood of imprisonment, also add on ethnicity. A tiny ethnic group, the Travellers, make up 10% of the male and 22% of the female prisoners in Ireland


Quote
Sex crimes are different because they are also committed by middle class people.  And everyone looks down on paedophiles.   Even scobies
Sex criminal rapists are mainly of a lower socioeconomic status, pedophiles are more of a mixed bunch I'd guess.
When it came to sentencing in this case, it would appear the judge took into careful consideration the fall from social grace as a part of his punishment already served. I came across that opinion (or similar) reported quite a few times, 'ah sure hasn't he already suffered greatly, isn't his life as he knew it in bits', 'hasn't he been made to suffer enough'?
'the sentence is about right'.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on November 07, 2017, 01:22:57 PM
Most prisoners in Roi come from 3 areas.  Inner city Dublin, Tallaght and Darndale. Character references help mitigate sentences for people from other areas .Criminal can be habitual or once off. The crime may be as a result of a personal traged or it may be systematic. The character reference examines this
For the record, it is not location but social/economic status which determines the likelihood of imprisonment, also add on ethnicity. A tiny ethnic group, the Travellers, make up 10% of the male and 22% of the female prisoners in Ireland


Quote
Sex crimes are different because they are also committed by middle class people.  And everyone looks down on paedophiles.   Even scobies
Sex criminal rapists are mainly of a lower socioeconomic status, pedophiles are more of a mixed bunch I'd guess.
When it came to sentencing in this case, it would appear the judge took into careful consideration the fall from social grace as a part of his punishment already served. I came across that opinion (or similar) reported quite a few times, 'ah sure hasn't he already suffered greatly, isn't his life as he knew it in bits', 'hasn't he been made to suffer enough'?
'the sentence is about right'.
I imagine that sex crimes are not driven by economic factors. Poverty seems to be the main crime.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 09:35:18 AM
I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Lar Naparka on November 11, 2017, 11:29:20 AM
I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship.
That's a difficult one alright. I think if I was the official in question, I would stop well short of issuing a glowing character reference  but I would give an honest opinion of what I had thought of the accused before the allegations were made known. To do otherwise would be to attempt to influence the judge's verdict.
I mean it would be up to the judge to consider all aspects of the case before the court and arrive at a verdict after considering all the evidence presented in court.
In my book, individuals should be presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. I'd be confident that even if I said I found the accused to be an enthusiastic and committed underage coach, the judge would figure out what his motives for spending so much time with young people really were.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Itchy on November 11, 2017, 12:23:03 PM
I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship.
That's a difficult one alright. I think if I was the official in question, I would stop well short of issuing a glowing character reference  but I would give an honest opinion of what I had thought of the accused before the allegations were made known. To do otherwise would be to attempt to influence the judge's verdict.
I mean it would be up to the judge to consider all aspects of the case before the court and arrive at a verdict after considering all the evidence presented in court.
In my book, individuals should be presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. I'd be confident that even if I said I found the accused to be an enthusiastic and committed underage coach, the judge would figure out what his motives for spending so much time with young people really were.

How could you say something positive about this guy. Everything thought of him previously was a lie as he no doubt manipulated his way with people in his community and GAA club to abuse children. His life in my book is defined by this. Anyone who would write a character reference for him is a buffoon. Its not difficulty at all Lar, not one bit. Judge shouldn't even be listening to such nonsense in cases like this.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Lar Naparka on November 11, 2017, 01:32:48 PM
I see this case is back in the news

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/former-gaa-coach-jailed-for-seven-years-for-dozens-of-indecent-assaults-on-two-young-boys-36308209.html

Here are a couple of articles  Eamon Sweeney wrote about it a while back

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/hold-the-back-page-courage-takes-many-forms-30282655.html

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/eamonn-sweeney-real-bravery-is-surviving-abuse-eric-35265976.html

I thinks its fair to say this guy was a monster who used his position as coach of the u12 team to prey on young boys.

When it comes to character references for someone like this what do people think is acceptable. Would it be right for a high up official in Eastern Harp and Sligo GAA to write a glowing reference for the court describing how he was a great community man and attributing the skills of current players to this monsters great coaching and mentor ship.
That's a difficult one alright. I think if I was the official in question, I would stop well short of issuing a glowing character reference  but I would give an honest opinion of what I had thought of the accused before the allegations were made known. To do otherwise would be to attempt to influence the judge's verdict.
I mean it would be up to the judge to consider all aspects of the case before the court and arrive at a verdict after considering all the evidence presented in court.
In my book, individuals should be presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law. I'd be confident that even if I said I found the accused to be an enthusiastic and committed underage coach, the judge would figure out what his motives for spending so much time with young people really were.

How could you say something positive about this guy. Everything thought of him previously was a lie as he no doubt manipulated his way with people in his community and GAA club to abuse children. His life in my book is defined by this. Anyone who would write a character reference for him is a buffoon. Its not difficulty at all Lar, not one bit. Judge shouldn't even be listening to such nonsense in cases like this.

Nah, you don't get my meaning. If the allegations surfaced, before a trial was heard, the man must be presumed innocent even though you and I know he's as guilty as hell. The problem is that if you allow public opinion influence the verdict, there is always the probability that mistakes will be made. Lynch law is no law.
It's not one bit too fanciful to bring up the case of the Birmingham Six. Maggie Thatcher was all for hanging every one of the accused and, to a large degree, British public opinion was of the same mind. Only the certainty that there would be endless legal challenges and that it would drive Irish Nationalists into the arms of the IRA caused her to back down.  To say, "Oops, we got it wrong. Sorry 'bout that," would have been of feck all use to anyone.
I'm not talking about giving anyone a positive character reference to this guy in question but I wouldn't deliberately omit that could be relevant to the case. It wouldn't be my job to influence the judge, the facts alone should determine that.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on November 11, 2017, 03:40:59 PM
Nah, you don't get my meaning. If the allegations surfaced, before a trial was heard, the man must be presumed innocent even though you and I know he's as guilty as hell. The problem is that if you allow public opinion influence the verdict, there is always the probability that mistakes will be made. Lynch law is no law.
It's not one bit too fanciful to bring up the case of the Birmingham Six. Maggie Thatcher was all for hanging every one of the accused and, to a large degree, British public opinion was of the same mind. Only the certainty that there would be endless legal challenges and that it would drive Irish Nationalists into the arms of the IRA caused her to back down.  To say, "Oops, we got it wrong. Sorry 'bout that," would have been of feck all use to anyone.
I'm not talking about giving anyone a positive character reference to this guy in question but I wouldn't deliberately omit that could be relevant to the case. It wouldn't be my job to influence the judge, the facts alone should determine that.

You are fighting an uphill battle Lar, some people here want to be the judge and jury as well as a witness.
From my perspective, someone could say of this individual that he was perceived at the time to be good coach if this was true. The judge is perfectly competent to take that on its merits and recognise that some of the enthusiasm had a malign intent.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Lar Naparka on November 11, 2017, 04:17:32 PM
Nah, you don't get my meaning. If the allegations surfaced, before a trial was heard, the man must be presumed innocent even though you and I know he's as guilty as hell. The problem is that if you allow public opinion influence the verdict, there is always the probability that mistakes will be made. Lynch law is no law.
It's not one bit too fanciful to bring up the case of the Birmingham Six. Maggie Thatcher was all for hanging every one of the accused and, to a large degree, British public opinion was of the same mind. Only the certainty that there would be endless legal challenges and that it would drive Irish Nationalists into the arms of the IRA caused her to back down.  To say, "Oops, we got it wrong. Sorry 'bout that," would have been of feck all use to anyone.
I'm not talking about giving anyone a positive character reference to this guy in question but I wouldn't deliberately omit that could be relevant to the case. It wouldn't be my job to influence the judge, the facts alone should determine that.

You are fighting an uphill battle Lar, some people here want to be the judge and jury as well as a witness.
From my perspective, someone could say of this individual that he was perceived at the time to be good coach if this was true. The judge is perfectly competent to take that on its merits and recognise that some of the enthusiasm had a malign intent.
Exactly! You got it in one.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: criostlinn on November 11, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.

 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 16, 2017, 06:58:31 PM
The UK government are in the process of extending the 'position of trust' legislation to sports coaches. This makes sexual relationships illegal between sports coaches and 16- and 17-year-olds in their care. The law currently covers teachers, hospital workers and carers, but not sports coaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265)
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Milltown Row2 on November 16, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
The UK government are in the process of extending the 'position of trust' legislation to sports coaches. This makes sexual relationships illegal between sports coaches and 16- and 17-year-olds in their care. The law currently covers teachers, hospital workers and carers, but not sports coaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265)

New coaching legislation coming in from Croke this year I hear... while the child protection courses were a great initiative when they first came out they needed to be backed by a police check if you’re being totally honest
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Lar Naparka on November 16, 2017, 11:12:10 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now…
I’m afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can’t half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can’t half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can’t pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn’t.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke’s abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don’t know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who’d say a word in Clarke’s favour.
In any event, the judge wasn’t swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on November 16, 2017, 11:32:37 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now…
I’m afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can’t half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can’t half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can’t pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn’t.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke’s abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don’t know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who’d say a word in Clarke’s favour.
In any event, the judge wasn’t swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

Not half long enough imo
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Itchy on November 16, 2017, 11:46:26 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now…
I’m afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can’t half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can’t half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can’t pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn’t.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke’s abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don’t know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who’d say a word in Clarke’s favour.
In any event, the judge wasn’t swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

7 years? Ask any man on the street and they will tell you what they think of 7 years for a child rapist.

I'm interested to know what you think of the victims Lar. Bad enough they have to live through the horror and then relive it in court but then to hear some stupid bollox give character reference to a rapist, fully aware of what he was just found guilty off. Does the victim get a thought at all?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Lar Naparka on November 17, 2017, 01:21:45 AM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now…
I’m afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can’t half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can’t half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can’t pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn’t.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke’s abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don’t know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who’d say a word in Clarke’s favour.
In any event, the judge wasn’t swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

7 years? Ask any man on the street and they will tell you what they think of 7 years for a child rapist.

I'm interested to know what you think of the victims Lar. Bad enough they have to live through the horror and then relive it in court but then to hear some stupid bollox give character reference to a rapist, fully aware of what he was just found guilty off. Does the victim get a thought at all?
No problem with that at all; I have unreserved sympathy with the victims. But I didn't give any sort of a personal opinion here. I'm just saying what the legal position is. Clarke had the right to have pleas for leniency entered on his behalf and no matter what any of us here might think, that's a legal right.
I'd be very reluctant to go any further as I don't know the full facts and I'm not referring to the verdict here. That seems clear enough; Clarke was found guilty as charged but I don't know why anyone would speak up on his behalf. However, if anyone chooses to do so,  I, or you, may disagree with his motive but not with his right.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: johnneycool on November 17, 2017, 08:21:53 AM
The UK government are in the process of extending the 'position of trust' legislation to sports coaches. This makes sexual relationships illegal between sports coaches and 16- and 17-year-olds in their care. The law currently covers teachers, hospital workers and carers, but not sports coaches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/42018265)

New coaching legislation coming in from Croke this year I hear... while the child protection courses were a great initiative when they first came out they needed to be backed by a police check if you’re being totally honest

All coaches are meant to have Access NI clearance, are they not? Ours do.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Itchy on November 17, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying here Lar.

This case is fairly clear. This monster used his position as a GAA coach to prey on and abuse young boys. He was found guilty of this thanks to the evidence of five brave men. God only knows how many more victims didnt get the opportunity or just couldnt find it in themselves to come forward

Despite this when all facts were heard and the jury had made its decision a senior club official from the very same club where the boys were abused provides a character witness for the accused  in which he speaks in glowing terms about his mentoring and coaching skills. For christ sake, the monster hadn't coached in the club in 30 years and the last time he did these offences occurred. I think its wrong that this kind of shite can be handed into a court in any case let alone something like this. Its not sworn evidence so should have no relevance to a judges decision on sentencing. If its not been used to try and influence a judge what is the purpose of it.

I'm sure the victims were delighted to know they had such great support from the club and the GAA in general.
Sorry, Críost, just saw this now…
I’m afraid I support the right of Clarke to have mitigating factors taken into account before the judge. Just as the the victims of abuse in this and similar cases had to right to have victim impact statements read into court proceedings, the accused is entitled to have speak on his behalf before the judge had arrived at his verdict. This is a democracy and this is the law.
Just as you can’t half dig a hole or half kick someone up the same, you can’t half prevent someone found guilty in a criminal trial from having someone speaking up on his or her behalf.
I mean the law in all its shapes and forms must be objective at all times- you can’t pick and choose who should be allowed to introduce positive character references and who shouldn’t.
I presume we are talking about Ballymote here. I know the place well and, by and large, the people there are as upright and conscientious as you will find anywhere. But it is a small, tightly-knit community where everyone one knows everyone else. At the very least, everyone there has to come into contact with every other local from time to time.
The official who came up with a positive character reference for the accused knew full well that he would be meeting up with friends and relations of the five who came forward and, if they are still living in the area, he will have to come face to face with the victims of Clarke’s abuse on a regular basis.
For him, knowing the consequences of his actions, he had to strongly believe that what he said in court was true that but it would also upset others in the locality. I don’t know for certain but I believe that others would have looked for leniency also. They not have come forward to testify but I'm sure there are some.
Otherwise the official who spoke up for Clarke would hardly have done so if he felt he was the only one in Ballymote who’d say a word in Clarke’s favour.
In any event, the judge wasn’t swayed by the glowing reference for the accused; seven years for a 75-year old is effectively a life sentence.

7 years? Ask any man on the street and they will tell you what they think of 7 years for a child rapist.

I'm interested to know what you think of the victims Lar. Bad enough they have to live through the horror and then relive it in court but then to hear some stupid bollox give character reference to a rapist, fully aware of what he was just found guilty off. Does the victim get a thought at all?
No problem with that at all; I have unreserved sympathy with the victims. But I didn't give any sort of a personal opinion here. I'm just saying what the legal position is. Clarke had the right to have pleas for leniency entered on his behalf and no matter what any of us here might think, that's a legal right.
I'd be very reluctant to go any further as I don't know the full facts and I'm not referring to the verdict here. That seems clear enough; Clarke was found guilty as charged but I don't know why anyone would speak up on his behalf. However, if anyone chooses to do so,  I, or you, may disagree with his motive but not with his right.

What is allowed by law is not in question, we know that character references are allowed. I suppose we are debating our own opinions on whether they a) Should be allowed or b) Should be given in situations of child abuse. My opinion is no and no. Judge should only deal in the facts of the case and nothing else.

Interesting fact, I knew a woman once whose two children were abused by a neighbour. First child took neighbour to court as an adult and won. The man went to jail for child abuse for 5 years I think. Second child later took a case (previously was too afraid to), they case was taken to try and heal that victim. The court was not allowed to hear any evidence or word whatsoever on the facts of what had happened to the first child. Nor were they allowed to know he was in jail for child abuse. The guy was found innocent of the 2nd crime due to lack of evidence and the victim was so distraught they left Ireland forever. When he was found guilty in the 1st case he got a great character reference from the parish priest.

So the law says to me the odds are stacked against the victim and the perpetrator is getting all the leeway.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: haranguerer on November 17, 2017, 01:50:08 PM
Your interesting fact has next to nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

The guy is in jail for the case in which he received a character reference. That's nothing to do with your other point which seems to be that each case shouldn't be heard on its own merits.

Defendants do get the leeway of being innocent til proven guilty. If you don't think that should be the basis for the legal system then there is little point in anyone trying to discuss anything regarding it with you.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Ciarrai_thuaidh on November 17, 2017, 04:26:59 PM
You'd imagine given the nature of the Humphries case the completely inadequate and farcical Garda vetting system of youth/child coaches would be revised and updated (this is the system in the 26 counties I'm talking about) but I wouldn't count on it.

I've been Garda vetted about 6 times in last 2 years and despite countless calls and contact with Croke park and Garda vetting unit, have no evidence (cert or otherwise) to prove it AND have never been asked to produce evidence either despite being involved with up to a dozen different groups of underage players. It's a joke and if this case doesn't get Croke park and the Government to improve things it's worse than a joke, it's scandalous.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on November 17, 2017, 04:55:57 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 17, 2017, 07:52:25 PM
In NI the problem is that if a person who is vetted by Access NI they have a certificate to show that they can work for a particular organisation with young people and vulnerable adults it is a once off check with no annual re-certification required.  In my last job, I held an Access NI certificate from they were first introduced until I left, period of around 20 years.  At no point was I required to be re-checked, this is general practice.  So, in NI, an organisation can only be sure that a person has been recently vetted when they first join.  An on-going checking system was planned to introduced to it became too complicated and was abandoned.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Avondhu star on November 17, 2017, 07:57:07 PM
You'd imagine given the nature of the Humphries case the completely inadequate and farcical Garda vetting system of youth/child coaches would be revised and updated (this is the system in the 26 counties I'm talking about) but I wouldn't count on it.

I've been Garda vetted about 6 times in last 2 years and despite countless calls and contact with Croke park and Garda vetting unit, have no evidence (cert or otherwise) to prove it AND have never been asked to produce evidence either despite being involved with up to a dozen different groups of underage players. It's a joke and if this case doesn't get Croke park and the Government to improve things it's worse than a joke, it's scandalous.

What will Garda vetting show? It may show that a person had been convicted of a crime
 What good is that in cases like Humphreys where he had never been charged before
 It may serve some purpose but it is back to parents to make sure that whoever they leave their kids With can be trusted. I see it every weekend. Parents drop their kids at the club and feck off. The kids are then driven to matches by other parents and often driven back to their houses. There may be some safety where the driver has his own child  in the car but occasions arise where that isn't the case. Any adult who allows a situation develop where he is in a car alone with someone else's child is leaving himself wide open to an allegation.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Itchy on November 17, 2017, 08:45:53 PM
Your interesting fact has next to nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

The guy is in jail for the case in which he received a character reference. That's nothing to do with your other point which seems to be that each case shouldn't be heard on its own merits.

Defendants do get the leeway of being innocent til proven guilty. If you don't think that should be the basis for the legal system then there is little point in anyone trying to discuss anything regarding it with you.

No you are missing the point.

1- A character reference for a rapist is admissible in a court of law to mitigate sentence.

2- The fact a guy is in jail for raping the sibling of a second victim was not admissible in court. Is that not a character reference in itself on the accused?

The law is stacked against the victim. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: haranguerer on November 18, 2017, 11:38:04 AM
I’m not missing the point at all, I’m pointing out the inconsistencies in it.

The prosecution equivalent of the character reference is the victim impact statement.

Neither the character refererence nor the victim impact statement have any bearing on whether the defendant is found guilty or not. They are merely for use in sentencing.

A criminals previous record is considered when they are being sentenced. So it is admissible in the terms you refer to.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Harold Disgracey on November 18, 2017, 01:02:45 PM
In NI the problem is that if a person who is vetted by Access NI they have a certificate to show that they can work for a particular organisation with young people and vulnerable adults it is a once off check with no annual re-certification required.  In my last job, I held an Access NI certificate from they were first introduced until I left, period of around 20 years.  At no point was I required to be re-checked, this is general practice.  So, in NI, an organisation can only be sure that a person has been recently vetted when they first join.  An on-going checking system was planned to introduced to it became too complicated and was abandoned.

Not quite true, I recently had to have vetting renewed through the club. Saying that I also have Access NI clearance through work which I completed perhaps about 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Rossfan on November 18, 2017, 03:13:00 PM
Hope I'm not trivialising this serious subject - but does Galbally recognise  Access NI?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Ciarrai_thuaidh on November 18, 2017, 06:54:46 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: twohands!!! on November 18, 2017, 07:27:54 PM
Hope I'm not trivialising this serious subject - but does Galbally recognise  Access NI?

Quote
"I will tell you a good one. If you take the fact that we have vetted over 130,000 since 2009, in all that time only one person came to me on the phone irate and said that he wouldn't be vetted. He would give up his job rather than be vetted. The reason he wouldn't be vetted is he did not recognise the Free State. He had a strong Republican background and as he said himself he would not bend the knee to the Free State."

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-constantly-tweaks-child-protection-measures-to-keep-pace-with-changing-times-36270213.html


I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..

Would you not chase up the issue yourself?

Have to say I'm surprised by this - especially in terms of the underage county squads. I could see one club being a bit slack, but a county board being slack is very poor imo.

Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 18, 2017, 09:23:17 PM
In NI the problem is that if a person who is vetted by Access NI they have a certificate to show that they can work for a particular organisation with young people and vulnerable adults it is a once off check with no annual re-certification required.  In my last job, I held an Access NI certificate from they were first introduced until I left, period of around 20 years.  At no point was I required to be re-checked, this is general practice.  So, in NI, an organisation can only be sure that a person has been recently vetted when they first join.  An on-going checking system was planned to introduced to it became too complicated and was abandoned.

Not quite true, I recently had to have vetting renewed through the club. Saying that I also have Access NI clearance through work which I completed perhaps about 10 years ago.

Correct, according to protocol, you must have a separate vetting by Access NI for every organisation that you are involved with that works with children and vulnerable adults.  However, I completed a CRB check for Dept of Education in 1990 when it was introduced in N.Ireland and I was never asked to renew the vetting until I left in 2016.  This is the norm for each organisation and a major weakness of the system.  An Access NI certificate will only be revoked if a person is convicted of a relevant offence.  Soft intelligence which would affect an Access NI vetting being approved will not cause one to to be revoked.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: AZOffaly on November 20, 2017, 12:01:42 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..

That's not been my experience. In fact this year we had to tell a coach he couldn't help out with us because he never got the vetting done. Our childrens officer would have your heart broken chasing up on stuff like that.

I have never been asked for it in a county squad right enough.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Avondhu star on November 20, 2017, 06:50:55 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..

That's not been my experience. In fact this year we had to tell a coach he couldn't help out with us because he never got the vetting done. Our childrens officer would have your heart broken chasing up on stuff like that.

I have never been asked for it in a county squad right enough.

That is down to having a concientious Child Protection Officer How many clubs will do that?
If County Boards refused to allow a club play matches until the Club could certify that all managers,coaches etc were vetted you might see some improvement.

Of course Child Protection should go beyond the sexual abuse issue. How many coaches etc exceed the speed limit when driving kids to games, carry more kids than they have seatbelts for etc. Admittedly this often happens because some parents use clubs as babysitting service
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Owen Brannigan on November 21, 2017, 09:55:31 PM
Ciarrai, when you say you've never been asked for evidence, what do you mean? In our club, our childrens officer coordinates the vetting, and renewals.

I mean that I've been asked to fill and send off the vetting form 10 times maybe in last few years but there's been zero follow up..by the club, schools or underage county squads!

As to Avondhu Star's post - I'd have to agree the vetting as it currently stands doesn't say much - which is why I was alluding to a possible overhaul of the system. You don't want to get paranoid or too PC about these things but we genuinely are too casual about people involved with kids at times in this country..

That's not been my experience. In fact this year we had to tell a coach he couldn't help out with us because he never got the vetting done. Our childrens officer would have your heart broken chasing up on stuff like that.

I have never been asked for it in a county squad right enough.

That is down to having a concientious Child Protection Officer How many clubs will do that?
If County Boards refused to allow a club play matches until the Club could certify that all managers,coaches etc were vetted you might see some improvement.

Of course Child Protection should go beyond the sexual abuse issue. How many coaches etc exceed the speed limit when driving kids to games, carry more kids than they have seatbelts for etc. Admittedly this often happens because some parents use clubs as babysitting service

The whole package of care is now referred to as Safeguarding instead of child protection.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on December 07, 2017, 10:03:53 AM
Eminem and DR Dre in the second part of the song

https://youtu.be/Xbw_BxDwdjk
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on March 07, 2018, 10:33:18 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0307/945645-courts-darragh-meehan/

Six and a half years for this sc**bag for what seems on the face of it to be a similar crime to Humphries
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: screenexile on March 07, 2018, 10:57:37 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0307/945645-courts-darragh-meehan/

Six and a half years for this sc**bag for what seems on the face of it to be a similar crime to Humphries

Humphries only got two and a half didn’t he?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: macdanger2 on March 07, 2018, 10:59:31 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0307/945645-courts-darragh-meehan/

Six and a half years for this sc**bag for what seems on the face of it to be a similar crime to Humphries

Humphries only got two and a half didn’t he?

Yep, f*cking scandalous
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on March 07, 2018, 11:07:57 PM
I hope none of his friends give him ghost writing gigs when he gets out, but lord knows the lack of common sense on these issues is very real.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Main Street on March 07, 2018, 11:49:58 PM
I think it's clear that Humphries was let off because the Judge regarded as time served,  his broken man demeanor, a broken family home, his dramatic fall from grace and his hyped up mental depression, whereas some nonentity 19 year old low life, sexually abusing a 13 year old has no such drama  and is served  a much stronger punishment.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on March 08, 2018, 10:10:45 AM
If you're famous/successful you have farther to fall - remember that bullshit?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 10:44:26 AM
Members of the working classes get longer sententes especially if they don't come from a decent hardworking well respected family. 
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2018, 11:00:43 AM
Members of the working classes get longer sentences especially if they don't come from a decent hardworking well respected family.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on March 08, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0307/945645-courts-darragh-meehan/

Six and a half years for this sc**bag for what seems on the face of it to be a similar crime to Humphries

On the face of it, this seems a long sentence, not only in relation to Humphries but also in relation to sentences for people who were abusing multiple children for years.

I hope none of his friends give him ghost writing gigs when he gets out, but lord knows the lack of common sense on these issues is very real.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to work after leaving jail?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 11:27:06 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0307/945645-courts-darragh-meehan/

Six and a half years for this sc**bag for what seems on the face of it to be a similar crime to Humphries

On the face of it, this seems a long sentence, not only in relation to Humphries but also in relation to sentences for people who were abusing multiple children for years.

I hope none of his friends give him ghost writing gigs when he gets out, but lord knows the lack of common sense on these issues is very real.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to work after leaving jail?

I’m saying Tom Humperies has no business contributing to mainstream media anymore. If you think otherwise you have little to no decency.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on March 08, 2018, 12:11:04 PM
why ?
its not like he write for children.
once some one comes out of prison the aim should be to reintegrate them back into society while trying to ensure they do not re-offend.
anything else and you may as well advocate the death penalty
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on March 08, 2018, 12:24:53 PM
I would not be happy with someone exploiting their fame from their crimes, but ghost writing is not doing that. If this chap sentenced today is a plumber or electrician should he be allowed work?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 12:31:42 PM
why ?
its not like he write for children.
once some one comes out of prison the aim should be to reintegrate them back into society while trying to ensure they do not re-offend.
anything else and you may as well advocate the death penalty

If you want to read his flowery verbiage set up a GoFundMe for him. Last I checked there wasn’t an age gate on the sports sections of websites or newspapers either.

He’s thankfully toxic to any major outlet now but he was ghost writing for lovely lads like Cusack while hiding behind his mental illness excuse after being charged. He can reintegrate however he wants to but he shouldn’t be given the platform that previously contributed to allowing him to sexual abuse children. It’s not complex.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on March 08, 2018, 12:40:16 PM
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how his previous ghost writing activities allowed him to him to sexual abuse children?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 01:01:46 PM
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how his previous ghost writing activities allowed him to him to sexual abuse children?

These are really weak attempts at gotcha posts, Armaghniac.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on March 08, 2018, 02:39:33 PM
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how his previous ghost writing activities allowed him to him to sexual abuse children?

These are really weak attempts at gotcha posts, Armaghniac.
so no answer then.
he would not need as go fund me page if he was allowed to continue on his totally non Sexual related writing activities .
instead would you prefer he lived a state sponsored life on the Dole due to being unable to continue Working,
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on March 08, 2018, 03:08:16 PM
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how his previous ghost writing activities allowed him to him to sexual abuse children?

These are really weak attempts at gotcha posts, Armaghniac.
so no answer then.
he would not need as go fund me page if he was allowed to continue on his totally non Sexual related writing activities .
instead would you prefer he lived a state sponsored life on the Dole due to being unable to continue Working,

Does his “mental illness” only let him write as a profession?
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Lar Naparka on March 08, 2018, 03:46:54 PM
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how his previous ghost writing activities allowed him to him to sexual abuse children?

These are really weak attempts at gotcha posts, Armaghniac.
so no answer then.
he would not need as go fund me page if he was allowed to continue on his totally non Sexual related writing activities .
instead would you prefer he lived a state sponsored life on the Dole due to being unable to continue Working,
What do you think ros?
I think Syf is trying to take over as the chief pain in the ass and prize attention seeker  now that Tony Fearon has disappeared. ;D
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: trueblue1234 on March 09, 2018, 09:06:26 AM
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how his previous ghost writing activities allowed him to him to sexual abuse children?

These are really weak attempts at gotcha posts, Armaghniac.
so no answer then.
he would not need as go fund me page if he was allowed to continue on his totally non Sexual related writing activities .
instead would you prefer he lived a state sponsored life on the Dole due to being unable to continue Working,
What do you think ros?
I think Syf is trying to take over as the chief pain in the ass and prize attention seeker  now that Tony Fearon has disappeared. ;D

Was he not ahead of Tony anyway? Wrecked more threads than him anyway. At least Tony tended to stick to the same threads most of the time. Syf is more scatter gun.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: magpie seanie on March 09, 2018, 09:34:21 AM
I don't think any publication would employ him and I certainly wouldn't want to read his musings and would boycott any entity that published them.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: rosnarun on March 09, 2018, 10:12:14 AM
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how his previous ghost writing activities allowed him to him to sexual abuse children?

These are really weak attempts at gotcha posts, Armaghniac.
so no answer then.
he would not need as go fund me page if he was allowed to continue on his totally non Sexual related writing activities .
instead would you prefer he lived a state sponsored life on the Dole due to being unable to continue Working,
What do you think ros?
I think Syf is trying to take over as the chief pain in the ass and prize attention seeker  now that Tony Fearon has disappeared. ;D
Much as I don't like personalizing abuse here.
being from Roscommon he has a head start
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Hound on March 09, 2018, 01:49:19 PM
I don't think any publication would employ him and I certainly wouldn't want to read his musings and would boycott any entity that published them.
Agree 100%. He'll never have a Lockerroom type scenario again.

But ghostwriting will be an avenue open to him, assuming it stays in the dark.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: Syferus on March 09, 2018, 04:11:45 PM
I don't think any publication would employ him and I certainly wouldn't want to read his musings and would boycott any entity that published them.
Agree 100%. He'll never have a Lockerroom type scenario again.

But ghostwriting will be an avenue open to him, assuming it stays in the dark.

It’s an avenue open to him only because it is hidden. It’s akin to calling a horse burger a beef burger, I don’t want to unwittingly support the writing career of a child abuser but I have no confidence that people like Cusack and David Walsh won’t crawl back out from the woodwork when the press has died down and Humphries spins them a sob story.

Given his ridiculously short sentence and the nonsense judicial reasoning, it would be an utter insult to the victim and child abuse victims in general.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: armaghniac on March 10, 2018, 12:10:30 PM
I think people should be encouraged to work after a jail sentence. Clearly, someone could not work as a teacher etc, but can in a job where there is no contact with children.
Title: Re: Tom Humphries
Post by: seafoid on March 10, 2018, 12:24:19 PM
I think people should be encouraged to work after a jail sentence. Clearly, someone could not work as a teacher etc, but can in a job where there is no contact with children.
Humphries was very late to admit guilt and refused treatment so unless he changes his tune I wouldn't support rehabilitation.

the RTE Producer who was entrapped in Yorkshire was sentenced yesterday. Paedophilia seems to happen at the end of a long meltdown.